[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11214-11246]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2014

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 288 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 2609.
  Will the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) kindly take the chair.

                              {time}  1716


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 2609) making appropriations for energy and water 
development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 2014, and for other purposes, with Mr. Price of Georgia (Acting 
Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise) had 
been disposed of, and the bill had been read through page 60, line 12.


                  Amendment No. 29 Offered by Ms. Bass

  Ms. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
request for a recorded vote on my amendment to the end that the 
amendment stand disposed of by the voice vote taken on the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  Without objection, the request for a recorded vote is withdrawn. 
Accordingly, the noes have it and the amendment is not adopted.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment by Mr. Polis of Colorado.
  Amendment by Mr. Burgess of Texas.
  Amendment by Mr. Burgess of Texas.
  Amendment by Ms. Titus of Nevada.
  Amendment by Mr. Lynch of Massachusetts.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Polis

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Polis) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182, 
noes 243, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 334]

                               AYES--182

     Amash
     Andrews
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Lance
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Loebsack
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Marino
     Markey
     Massie
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rohrabacher
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Rush
     Salmon
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Stockman
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--243

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallego
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Latta
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Maffei
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sessions
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Campbell
     DeGette
     Holt
     Horsford
     Hunter
     McCarthy (NY)
     Negrete McLeod
     Rogers (MI)
     Shimkus

                              {time}  1745

  Messrs. FARENTHOLD, DeSANTIS, GRIMM, and MURPHY of Pennsylvania 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. STOCKMAN, VISCLOSKY, RAHALL, MARINO, MULVANEY, and BROUN of 
Georgia, and Ms.

[[Page 11215]]

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Burgess

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Meadows). The unfinished business is the demand 
for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Burgess) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 114, 
noes 308, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 335]

                               AYES--114

     Amash
     Barton
     Becerra
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cassidy
     Chaffetz
     Chu
     Clarke
     Cohen
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Gardner
     Gohmert
     Gosar
     Graves (GA)
     Grayson
     Grijalva
     Hall
     Heck (WA)
     Hensarling
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huffman
     Huizenga (MI)
     Israel
     Jones
     Keating
     Kennedy
     Kilmer
     Labrador
     Lance
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Long
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Marchant
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McClintock
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Mica
     Michaud
     Moore
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Pallone
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Posey
     Quigley
     Radel
     Rangel
     Rohrabacher
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Speier
     Stockman
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Velazquez
     Walberg
     Waxman
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Woodall

                               NOES--308

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amodei
     Andrews
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bucshon
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Cicilline
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Connolly
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Daines
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Rodney
     Delaney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Engel
     Enyart
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frankel (FL)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hoyer
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Kuster
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Latta
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Messer
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     O'Rourke
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Scalise
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sewell (AL)
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Weber (TX)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bishop (UT)
     Campbell
     Carter
     DeGette
     Diaz-Balart
     Holt
     Horsford
     Hunter
     McCarthy (NY)
     Negrete McLeod
     Rogers (MI)
     Shimkus


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining.

                              {time}  1752

  Messrs. LYNCH and ELLISON changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Burgess

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Burgess) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 131, 
noes 291, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 336]

                               AYES--131

     Amash
     Barton
     Becerra
     Bishop (UT)
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cartwright
     Cassidy
     Chaffetz
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Cohen
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Daines
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Duncan (SC)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Gohmert
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Grayson
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hall
     Heck (WA)
     Hensarling
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huffman
     Huizenga (MI)
     Israel
     Johnson (GA)
     Jones
     Keating
     Kennedy
     Kilmer
     Labrador
     Lance
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Long
     Lowenthal
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Marchant
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McClintock
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Mulvaney
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Pallone
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Radel
     Rohrabacher
     Salmon
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stockman
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Waters
     Waxman
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Woodall

                               NOES--291

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amodei
     Andrews
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)

[[Page 11216]]


     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bucshon
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Connolly
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     Delaney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Engel
     Enyart
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frankel (FL)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garcia
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hoyer
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Kuster
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Latta
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Messer
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     O'Rourke
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Price (GA)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Scalise
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sewell (AL)
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Weber (TX)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bonner
     Campbell
     Carter
     DeGette
     Holt
     Horsford
     Hunter
     McCarthy (NY)
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     Rogers (MI)
     Shimkus


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Price of Georgia) (during the vote). There are 
2 minutes remaining.

                              {time}  1759

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                     Amendment Offered by Ms. Titus

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Nevada 
(Ms. Titus) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 87, 
noes 337, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 337]

                                AYES--87

     Amodei
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Brownley (CA)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Chaffetz
     Chu
     Clarke
     Cohen
     Crowley
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Doggett
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Frankel (FL)
     Garamendi
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (NV)
     Honda
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kennedy
     Kirkpatrick
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meng
     Miller, George
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Pallone
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman

                               NOES--337

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Andrews
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Beatty
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonamici
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Cartwright
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Cicilline
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cotton
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Delaney
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Enyart
     Esty
     Farenthold
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holding
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Israel
     Issa
     Jeffries
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Kuster
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Latta
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Messer
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Moran
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neal
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     O'Rourke
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Radel
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Watt
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf

[[Page 11217]]


     Womack
     Woodall
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Campbell
     Carter
     DeGette
     Holt
     Horsford
     Hunter
     McCarthy (NY)
     Negrete McLeod
     Rogers (MI)
     Shimkus


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining.

                              {time}  1806

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Lynch

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 217, 
noes 206, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 338]

                               AYES--217

     Amash
     Amodei
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Bera (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks (AL)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chaffetz
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fleming
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gibson
     Gowdy
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Labrador
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Markey
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth
     Yoho
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--206

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Andrews
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bentivolio
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Doyle
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Enyart
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallego
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hinojosa
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Campbell
     DeGette
     Franks (AZ)
     Holt
     Horsford
     Hunter
     McCarthy (NY)
     Negrete McLeod
     Rogers (MI)
     Shimkus
     Webster (FL)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1812

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar

  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available in this Act or 
     funds available in the Bonneville Power Administration Fund 
     may be used by the Department of Energy for any program, 
     project, or activity required by or otherwise proposed in the 
     memorandum from Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy, to the Power 
     Marketing Administrators with the subject line ``Power 
     Marketing Administrations' Role'' and dated March 16, 2012.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, on March 16, 2012, the Secretary of Energy 
issued a ``Memorandum for Power Marketing Administrators.'' This memo, 
commonly referred to as the ``Chu memorandum,'' has created a great 
deal of concern among our constituents who rely on Power Marketing 
Administrations, or PMAs, for affordable and reliable energy.
  As many of you know, the PMAs are four regional Power Marketing 
Administrations which have been delivering reliable, clean energy to 
consumers for over 75 years. The PMAs have been successful models of 
regional collaboration with local stakeholders and a guided principle 
of ``beneficiary pays,'' meaning that whoever benefits from the 
specific investments in the PMAs' infrastructure ultimately bears the 
cost.
  The former Secretary's memo directs the PMAs to act in areas 
involving transmission expansion, renewable energy, energy efficiency, 
and cybersecurity--all laudable goals--goals that, on the surface, I 
support. In fact, I have strongly advocated for the expansion of 
transmission here in Congress. However, I believe the Department of 
Energy's means of these goals, the ``Chu memo,'' would implement a top-
down approach that could certainly impose greater costs and risks that 
outweigh benefits and could undermine the collaborative and low-cost, 
emissions-free nature of the Federal power program.

[[Page 11218]]

  This issue has undergone significant scrutiny here in Congress over 
the past year. Last year, I and Congressman Jim Matheson, from Utah, 
led a letter expressing concern over the Chu memo. That letter was 
signed by over 160 U.S. Senators and Representatives, almost evenly 
split between Republicans and Democrats. Additionally, the House 
Appropriations Committee approved similar language to what I am putting 
forth today, by voice vote, to the 2013 Energy and Water Appropriations 
bill barring the Secretary from implementing the Chu directives. There 
are few issues that Congress has had such consensus on in the past.
  Additionally, the House Natural Resources Committee has held multiple 
hearings on the memo, and it was a major topic of conversation at our 
recent PMA FY 2014 budget hearing. Members from both sides of the aisle 
have expressed concern about how the DOE might move forward with the 
Chu memo.
  It is best if we stop this train wreck from moving forward before it 
is even implemented. My amendment would simply prohibit the power 
marketing agencies from utilizing their budgets to implement any new 
program, project or activity proposed under the guise of this memo. It 
is not intended to disrupt any previously existing activities of the 
PMAs, including the Bonneville Power Administration, that have been 
conducted in coordination and with the support of the customers. It is 
many of our beliefs that the recommendations of the memo fall far from 
the DOE's authority under the existing law. If the DOE would like to 
move forward, this amendment ensures the administration will have to 
come forward in a transparent manner and request legal authority.
  I hope my colleagues will support this commonsense amendment that 
will preserve the existing Federal power program and will ensure our 
constituents' electricity costs stay low. I urge the support of my 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I support the gentleman's amendment. As he said, 
we had a similar provision in last year's bill, and we know the 
concerns are acute in the power marketing regions.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Whitfield

  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act 
     under the heading Renewable Energy, Energy Reliability and 
     Efficiency may be used by the Department of Energy for wind 
     energy programs.

  Mr. WHITFIELD (during the reading). I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Kentucky?
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I object.
  The Acting CHAIR. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk continued to read.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I would like to explain, number one, why I am offering 
this amendment and then explain, number two, specifically what this 
amendment does.
  The reason it is in handwriting is that, after we submitted the 
printed amendment, we had a conversation with the Parliamentarian, and 
a suggestion was made to change it, so it was changed.
  This administration has made it very clear to the American people 
that it is trying to dictate the fuels used to produce electricity in 
America, and they've made it very clear that they are flagrantly 
discriminating and giving preferential treatment to the wind industry.
  Now, why do I say that?
  I don't say it because of the $12.1 billion production tax credit 
that the wind industry has received this year, and I don't say it 
because of the billions of dollars that the wind industry has received 
in past years. I say it because the administration has decided not to 
prosecute the wind industry for violations of the Migratory Bird Treaty 
Act or of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act or of the Endangered 
Species Act.
  According to an Associated Press investigation, in fact, the Obama 
administration has never fined or prosecuted a wind farm for killing 
eagles and other protected bird species--shielding the industry from 
liability and helping keep the scope of the deaths secret.
  As a matter of fact, to show you how the administration is being very 
discriminatory in the prosecution of these acts, British Petroleum was 
fined $100 million for killing migratory birds in the gulf oil spill. 
ExxonMobil was fined $600,000 for killing 85 birds. PacifiCorp was 
fined $10.5 million for killing birds. A utility in Wyoming was fined 
$100,000 for killing one eagle. I could go on and on and on. Yet more 
than 573,000 birds were killed by the country's wind farms last year, 
including 83,000 hunting birds, such as hawks, falcons and eagles, 
according to an estimate published in March in the peer-reviewed The 
Wildlife Society.
  We know that this administration is getting the reputation of 
deciding what Federal laws it's going to enforce and which ones it's 
not going to enforce. Now it is deciding that we are going to prosecute 
on the Endangered Species Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection 
Act, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act if you happen to be in this 
sector of the economy, but if you're in the wind industry, we're not 
going to prosecute you.
  Do you know what is even worse than that?
  They are now deciding that they want to carve out a rule, which the 
Obama administration has proposed, that would give wind energy 
companies potentially decades of shelter from the prosecution of the 
killing of any birds. The regulation is currently under review at the 
White House. The proposal, which was made at the urging of the wind 
industry, would allow companies to apply for 30-year permits to kill 
bald eagles, golden eagles and other migratory birds. Previously, 
companies were only eligible for 5-year permits. It's basically 
guaranteeing a black box for 30 years, and they're saying, Trust us for 
oversight.
  ``This is not the path forward,'' said Katie Umekubo, a renewable 
energy attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council.
  So why should the American people be giving billions of dollars to 
this industry and be allowing this administration not to prosecute them 
when they are obviously killing thousands of birds--in direct violation 
of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, of the Bald and Golden Eagle 
Protection Act, and of the Endangered Species Act?
  My amendment simply says, with regard to the $24 million set aside 
for research and development in the committee report, that it not be 
allowed to use that money simply because of the extraordinary 
protection this administration is going to provide to prevent them from 
being prosecuted under the existing Federal laws that this Congress 
passed many years ago. That is the purpose of the amendment, and I 
would respectfully urge Members to vote for this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly to oppose the 
amendment because I know my colleague, my friend from Kentucky, has an 
incredible reputation of being the friend of animals and birds. 
Obviously, we are concerned about the issues he has raised.

[[Page 11219]]

  Our bill already reduces the Wind Energy program from $59 million to 
$24 million, a cut of nearly 60 percent. His amendment goes a step 
further by eliminating the Wind Energy program entirely, which would 
result in the termination of the first offshore wind at-scale 
demonstration in the United States and would result in a dramatic drop-
off in the U.S. deployment of wind energy systems. This setback would 
come at a time when wind is renewable energy's fastest growing sector.
  I oppose my colleague's amendment. I am certainly aware of his 
heartfelt concern. We are listening to what he said, but I still oppose 
it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I think the gentleman who is proposing the amendment 
is missing some major points.
  Before a wind energy project can continue or go into effect, it has 
to meet very stringent environmental requirements. Those environmental 
requirements, among other things, deal specifically with all types of 
birds. I will tell you that, in my current district and in my previous 
district, I had the major wind farms in California, and no project was 
allowed to go forward without addressing these issues. Under the 
Endangered Species Act, it is possible for incidental takes to take 
place if there is appropriate mitigation, and I know from the projects 
in my area that there had to be appropriate mitigation.

                              {time}  1830

  The modern wind turbines are far different than the old wind 
turbines, which were, in fact, deadly to birds. The modern wind 
turbines are far less so. And if there is an incidental take of a 
listed species, it can only occur with proper and appropriate 
mitigation.
  The author's reference to the issue of a longtime take opportunity 
only occurs if there happens to be an adaptive management program in 
place that allows the Fish and Wildlife Service and other appropriate 
agencies to review the process and progress, or lack thereof, and apply 
different measures or stop the projects at that time.
  So I would oppose the amendment. I think it is based upon incorrect 
facts. And I join the chairman in opposition.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  Last year, wind energy was the largest source of new generating 
capacity in our country, comprising 42 percent of all new generating 
capacity. Overall, America's wind energy capacity grew by 28 percent. 
That's an incredible record, and it demonstrates that wind energy is an 
affordable, reliable source of power that produces no carbon or other 
air pollution.
  But the recent success of wind energy in our country doesn't mean we 
should stop investing in it. In fact, we need to do more, not less, to 
develop and deploy new wind energy technologies, and we're busy doing 
that along the Great Lakes.
  Wind energy will play an important role in the transition to a 
cleaner energy economy. According to the American Wind Energy 
Association, this year alone U.S. wind projects will avoid nearly 100 
million metric tons of carbon dioxide being poured into the 
atmosphere--the equivalent of reducing power sector emissions by over 4 
percent or taking more than 17 million cars off the road.
  In addition to cutting carbon pollution, investing in wind energy is 
a boon to our economy. In 2012, the industry supported more than 80,000 
full-time equivalent jobs, including more than 25,000 manufacturing 
jobs at more than 550 facilities. As the global clean energy economy 
grows, the United States has a tremendous opportunity to attract more 
investment here and create even more manufacturing jobs, including in 
Kentucky and Ohio.
  But we are at risk of missing out on this opportunity. At a time when 
the global clean energy market is getting more competitive, the United 
States has started to lag behind. In 2012, China's level of clean 
energy financing surpassed our country's for the first time.
  Year after year, some House Republicans have pushed budgets and 
appropriation bills that would slash funding for clean energy and 
energy-efficiency programs. This appropriation bill is no exception, 
and Mr. Whitfield's amendment just takes it one step further. 
Eliminating all Department of Energy wind energy programs is exactly 
the wrong approach and one that will hurt our Nation's competitiveness 
in this growing market. It certainly isn't consistent with an all-of-
the-above energy strategy.
  Some may argue it makes sense to cut government investment in wind 
energy since it is a more mature technology than some emerging 
technologies, but wind energy isn't operating on a level playing field. 
The United States currently provides enormous government subsidies and 
tax breaks to fossil fuels. In fact, the International Monetary Fund 
just issued a report finding that the United States provides more 
subsidies to fossil fuels than any other country in the world, even 
China. Our annual subsidies total over--get ready for this--one-half of 
a trillion dollars.
  We shouldn't cede the growing global clean energy market to China or 
make any of our other competitors happy.
  And let me just say this, as I know quite a bit about this and Ohio 
has been fast about wind energy. I represent the Saudi Arabia of wind 
in the Great Lakes, which is called Lake Erie. Lake Erie also happens 
to be the warmest of the lakes, so it's a bird haven. On the 
Mississippi Flyway, we have more fish, fauna, and birds than all the 
other Great Lakes combined. And with that Mississippi Flyway coming up, 
we have lots of eagles, we have lots of different types of birds. The 
cormorants are some that are problematic, but, nonetheless, we are 
really a bird haven. We've learned that the wind turbines don't cause 
us any trouble. We have to situate them sometimes 3 miles from shore.
  The biggest killer of birds nationwide is cats. So if you really want 
to look at where the problem is, maybe we need more cat control. But 
honestly, for the number of turbines that we've erected, what happens, 
especially when you have a set of turbines operating in the air, they 
create an updraft and the birds--they are pretty smart--sort of fly 
above the wind. They're amazing. They float on the pathway that the 
turbines generate. In addition to that, there are new technologies like 
strobe lights that are actually affixed to the turbines, and they keep 
birds away. It's almost like a silent radar in a way. So there are new 
technologies that are being developed to deal with that.
  We actually want birds. We want turbines. We want clean energy. We 
want all types of energy in our region. We haul coal out of Kentucky to 
many of our power plants. So we have an all-of-the-above strategy in 
our region, but we really welcome the wind opportunities.
  Cleveland, Ohio, and an investment group called LEEDCo is doing 
everything possible to move additional turbines onto the Great Lakes.
  So I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I ask my 
colleagues to vote against it. And I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky 
will be postponed.
  Ms. TITUS. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Nevada is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise this evening to speak on a serious 
issue that affects my constituents. I've been

[[Page 11220]]

investigating it since it was brought to my attention several months 
ago through our local media.
  The Department of Energy is in the process of moving dangerous 
radioactive waste thousands of miles across the country from east 
Tennessee to southern Nevada. This waste is destined for the Nevada 
Nuclear Security Site, formally known as the Nevada Test Site. This is 
a totally separate issue now from the proposed Yucca Mountain storage 
site debate that we have heard earlier today.
  If you're unaware that this radioactive waste is traveling through 
your backyard, I'm not surprised. The DOE has failed to properly inform 
Congress about this activity.
  The project involves the transport of hundreds of canisters 
containing high-concentration fissile materials from the Consolidated 
Edison Uranium Solidification Project in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, to be 
dumped in my State of Nevada. The materials are so radioactive that 
they have a half life of more than 160,000 years.
  I want to be clear that this is not the kind of low-level waste that 
the Nevada Test Site has been accepting for years. In fact, just weeks 
ago, I learned that the Department of Energy had reworked the waste 
acceptance criteria for the security site to allow storage of materials 
that have radioactive concentrations more than 40 times higher than 
anything that has ever been brought to the site for disposal before.
  That revision to the WAC, or waste acceptance criteria, was signed 
off on by the DOE the very same day that agency officials met with my 
staff and State and local officials, yet DOE didn't think it was 
necessary or important to inform any of us about this change. As a 
matter of fact, it took an Internet search days later to discover that 
DOE had actually reworked the playbook for the site without any public 
input.
  Mr. Chairman, there are far too many questions about what DOE is 
doing and plans to do at the Nevada Test Site, questions that so far 
have gone unanswered.
  Nevadans have had a lot of experience dealing with Federal officials 
throughout the days of atomic testing and during the Cold War. We're 
not going to just turn aside now and let the DOE run roughshod over our 
communities.
  And I can tell you that I'm not alone in expressing my concerns about 
the DOE's activities. Our Republican governor, Brian Sandoval, has also 
publicly stated his opposition to the shipments of this radioactive 
waste. In a letter to the Energy Secretary, our Governor stated that 
classifying ``this material as low-level waste sets a dangerous 
precedent.'' I will be submitting the letter from Governor Sandoval for 
the Record.
  Mr. Chairman, my district sits just 65 miles southeast of the Nevada 
Test Site. The Las Vegas metropolitan area is home to nearly 2 million 
residents and more than 40 million visitors annually. Any plan to 
transport waste through the heart of the Las Vegas Valley would be 
extremely risky and incredibly irresponsible. The stakes are just too 
high to gamble on District One's safety.
  The DOE has refused to cooperate with repeated attempts to gather 
additional information so we can have appropriate oversight. It's 
unthinkable that DOE is moving forward with this program without 
properly briefing Members of Congress. If we are being kept in the 
dark, who is overseeing the DOE's plans? It's critical that DOE be 
forthright about how and why the WAC was changed, how the changes 
relate to the proposed shipment, and how these changes will affect the 
safety and security of southern Nevada and communities across the 
country in the path of this transportation.
  I'd like to thank the chairman and especially the ranking member for 
allowing me to bring this to the attention of the House, and I would 
ask them to work with me to ensure that there's proper congressional 
oversight of DOE and that the people of Nevada and beyond get the 
answers that they deserve.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                     Las Vegas, NV, June 20, 2013.
     Re Planned Shipment of Wastes from Oak Ridge to Nevada 
         National Security Site

     Hon. Dr. Ernest Moniz,
     Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Moniz: I'm writing to inform you that after 
     long and serious consideration, I have decided to oppose the 
     Department of Energy's plan to ship the Consolidated Edison 
     Uranium Solidification Project (CEUSP) canisters containing 
     dangerous and long-lived radioactive waste for disposal at 
     Area 5 of the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS).
       I am aware that DOE believes that these canisters qualify 
     for disposal as low-level radioactive waste (LLW). My 
     advisors have independently evaluated all of the important 
     technical and regulatory issues. They have concluded that the 
     CEUSP canisters are not commonplace LLW; even if these 
     canisters meet a legalistic definition of LLW, they are not 
     suitable for shallow land burial at the NNSS. Nevada is also 
     not satisfied with the overall process that DOE has followed 
     in developing its disposal and transportation plans, 
     including failure to appropriately address the concerns of 
     affected local governments and Native American Tribes.
       The CEUSP canisters can only be considered LLW because they 
     do not meet the legal definition of high-level radioactive 
     waste, spent nuclear fuel, transuranic waste, or uranium mill 
     tailings. Using this logic, DOE is attempting to exploit a 
     gap in current regulations. This dangerous waste should be 
     managed in the same manner as remote-handled transuranic 
     waste, which DOE currently ships to the Waste Isolation Pilot 
     Plant for permanent deep-geologic disposal. The canisters 
     contain a high concentration of fissile material (Uranium 235 
     and Uranium 233), uranium isotopes that are extremely long-
     lived (half lives of more than 160,000 years), and have a 
     relatively high surface dose rate (300 rem per hour), which 
     makes them dangerous to workers and a potential source of 
     ``dirty bomb'' material. Moreover, qualifying this material 
     as LLW sets a dangerous precedent for the classification of 
     potential future waste streams that exist across the nation.
       Both Nevada and DOE have a mutual interest in the long-term 
     and safe management of NNSS. Over the past two decades, the 
     Nevada Division of Environmental Protection has worked 
     successfully with DOE on a broad range of environmental 
     assessment and remediation activities at NNSS. I believe that 
     this provides a basis for shared planning for future uses of 
     DOE facilities at NNSS.
       I request a meeting with you at your earliest convenience 
     to discuss in a cooperative manner Nevada's views on the 
     future of operations at the NNSS. Timely matters for 
     discussion include the recently completed Site-wide 
     Environmental Impact Statement and pending issuance of the 
     associated Record of Decision, troubling revisions to the 
     NNSS Waste Acceptance Criteria, and the unsatisfactory manner 
     in which DOE and National Nuclear Security Administration 
     have dealt with affected local governments and Native 
     American Tribes in Nevada.
       The State of Nevada is committed to a long-term cooperative 
     relationship with your Department, based on mutual respect, 
     sound science, protection of the environment, and public 
     health and safety. I look forward to meeting with you at your 
     earliest convenience.
           Sincere regards,
                                                   Brian Sandoval,
                                                         Governor.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Turner

  Mr. TURNER. I have an amendment at the desk
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to reduce the active and inactive nuclear weapons 
     stockpiles of the United States in contravention of section 
     303(b) of the Arms Control and Disarmament Act (22 U.S.C. 
     2573(b)).

  Mr. TURNER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent to dispense with the reading.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 
2906.
  I offer this amendment in response to the President's recent address 
in Berlin in which he outlined his plan to further reduce the United 
States strategic nuclear arsenal below acceptable levels and in 
contravention of current law.
  The President's latest proposal would once again call for unilateral 
reductions in our strategic nuclear arsenal at a time when countries 
like Russia

[[Page 11221]]

and China continue to expand and modernize their nuclear capabilities.
  To make matters worse, the President has undertaken this most recent 
effort without the consent of the United States Senate, as required 
under the Arms Control and Disarmament Act, which states international 
agreements cannot limit or reduce the military forces of the United 
States unless enacted pursuant to a treaty or congressional-executive 
agreement.
  Not only do the President's continued calls for weapons reductions 
jeopardize the safety and security of the United States, but he 
compromises the safety of our partner nations.
  It is unacceptable that the President continues to make secret deals 
with countries like Russia while at the same time breaking promises 
with the American people and our allies.
  The current threat environment around the world is very real and 
should not be underestimated. A robust nuclear arsenal is critical in 
deterring against emerging threats like Iran and North Korea.
  My amendment simply ensures that none of the funds appropriated by 
this act may be used to further reduce nuclear force reductions outside 
of the formal process established under existing law.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I support the gentleman's amendment, and I salute 
his leadership in this area, both in this Congress and the past 
Congresses.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment and 
wish to say, first of all, it is unnecessary because there are no funds 
in the FY14 bill that are allocated to be used for nuclear weapons 
reductions below the New START levels.
  The amendment, in my opinion, is constitutionally questionable 
because it impinges on the President's ability to set U.S. nuclear 
weapons policy and usurp's the President's ability to retire, 
dismantle, or eliminate non-deployed nuclear weapons.

                              {time}  1845

  This amendment restricts the President's constitutional authority to 
negotiate international agreements, including sole executive agreements 
for arms reductions; and it impinges on the President's authority to 
determine the number of strategic delivery vehicles needed to meet 
national security requirements and implement changes in those forces, 
as appropriate. And it limits the President's authority to determine 
appropriate force structure to meet nuclear deterrence requirements and 
to set nuclear employment policy, an authority exercised by every 
President in the nuclear age. Frankly, it is bad policy.
  Blocking nuclear weapons reduction is out of step with post-Cold War 
and post-9/11 security environment. Secretary Schultz, Secretary 
Kissinger, Secretary Nunn, and Secretary Perry all have encouraged 
further nuclear weapons reductions stating in 2007:

       Unless urgent new actions are taken, the United States soon 
     will be compelled to enter a new nuclear era that will be 
     more precarious and psychologically disorienting, and 
     economically even more costly than was Cold War deterrence.

  The amendment disregards potential military requirements, including 
potential Strategic Command recommendations, and instead imposes 
congressional requirements.
  It seems to restrict any reductions below the New START to bilateral 
negotiated reductions with Russia. So in effect it outsources decisions 
on U.S. nuclear force structure to Russia, and it requires maintenance 
of nuclear weapons levels that might be costly and unnecessary in an 
era of budget constraints.
  I think the amendment is poorly written and will not achieve its 
objectives. It fails to ban unilateral reductions by referencing the 
ACA section 303(b) of the Arms Control and Disarmament Act.
  It fails to keep deployed forces at 1,550. And, as written, it allows 
the whole stockpile to decline to that level since that's the limit in 
New START. This would entail retaining a total stockpile of 1,550 with 
a deployed force of 1,550, which simply does not make sense. Neither 
the active nor the inactive stockpile is limited by New START. The 
treaty limits the number of operationally deployed warheads and 
delivery vehicles. While operationally deployed warheads are part of 
the active stockpile, the size of the stockpile itself is not limited. 
Supporting 1,550 deployed warheads would require the Department of 
Defense and the Department of Energy to maintain an active stockpile in 
excess of 1,550 warheads. New START also does not count nonstrategic 
warheads, so it is unclear whether the amendment intends to count the 
nonstrategic warheads under the New START limit.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit some additional comments for the 
Record. Obviously, I disagree with the gentleman's amendment and urge 
my colleagues to oppose his amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

    Talking Points Against the Turner Amendment on Nuclear Weapons 
                               Reductions

  Turner Amendment language: Sec._. None of the funds made available by 
this Act may be used to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the 
active and inactive stockpiles of the United States below that required 
by the New START treaty (as defined in __) in contravention of section 
303(b) of the Arms Control and Disarmament Act (22 USC 2573(b)).


                              Unnecessary

  There are no funds in FY14 bill that are allocated to be used for 
nuclear weapons reductions below New START levels.


                     Constitutionally questionable

  The amendment impinges on the President's ability to set US nuclear 
weapons policy and usurps the President's ability to retire, dismantle, 
or eliminate non-deployed nuclear weapons.
  This amendment restricts the President's constitutional authority to 
negotiate international agreements, including sole executive agreements 
for arms reduction;
  impinges on the President's authority to determine the number of 
strategic delivery vehicles needed to meet national security 
requirements and implement changes in those forces as appropriate;
  limits the President's authority to determine appropriate force 
structure to meet nuclear deterrence requirements and to set nuclear 
employment policy--authority exercised by every president in the 
nuclear age.


                               Bad policy

  Blocking nuclear weapons reductions is out of step with post-Cold War 
and post-9/11 security environment. Sec. Schultz, Sec. Kissinger, 
Senator Nunn and Sec. Perry have encouraged further nuclear weapons 
reductions stating in 2007: ``Unless urgent new actions are taken, the 
United States soon will be compelled to enter a new nuclear era that 
will be more precarious and psychologically disorienting, and 
economically even more costly than was Cold War deterrence.''
  Disregards potential military requirements, including potential 
Strategic Command recommendations, and instead imposes Congressional 
requirement.
  Seems to restrict any reductions below New START to bilateral, 
negotiated reductions with Russia, so in effect outsources decisions on 
US nuclear force structure to Russia.
  Requires maintenance of nuclear weapons levels that might be costly 
and unnecessary in an era of budget constraints.


                              Ineffective

  The amendment is poorly written and will not achieve its objectives.
  It fails to ban unilateral reductions by referencing the ACA Section 
303(b) of the Arms Control and Disarmament Act.
  ACDA does not prevent the President from making unilateral reductions 
in U.S. nuclear weapons. It says that the President cannot obligate the 
United States to reduce its forces in a militarily significant way 
without seeking the approval of Congress. ``Obligate'' usually means 
signing a legally-binding treaty or executive agreement. A handshake, 
or joint statement of political intent would not be an ``obligation'' 
under the terms of this legislation.
  It fails to keep deployed forces at 1,550.
  As written, it allows the whole stockpile to decline to 1,550, since 
that's the limit in New START. This would entail retaining a total 
stockpile of 1,550, with a deployed force of

[[Page 11222]]

1,550, which does not make sense. Neither the active nor the inactive 
stockpile are limited by New START. The Treaty limits the number of 
operationally deployed warheads and delivery vehicles. While 
operationally deployed warheads are part of the active stockpile, the 
size of the stockpile itself is not limited. Supporting 1,550 deployed 
warheads would require DOD and DOE to maintain an active stockpile in 
excess of 1,550 warheads. New START also does not count nonstrategic 
warheads so it is unclear whether the amendment intends to count the 
nonstrategic warheads under the new START limit.
  Quote by Gen Kehler, in response to question by Mr. Turner at 
STRATCOM policy hearing on March 5, 2013 (noting that you do not 
necessarily need an operational pit production infrastructure is needed 
before we reduce non-deployed nuclear weapons):
  Mr. Turner. Great. Because you would agree that our ability to have a 
long-term ability for production, in a production infrastructure should 
be a basis for us considering whether or not we reduce any of our hedge 
in case there isn't an issue with the weapons that we have.
  General Kehler. Sir, I think that is one consideration. I don't think 
that is the only consideration. And I think that there are some 
scenarios that you can unfold where an interim strategy will serve us 
even under some technical issues. So I--but I think for the United 
States of America in the long term that we want a permanent solution to 
the nuclear enterprise that includes a permanent solution to the 
plutonium.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. I urge the House to support the Turner-Rogers-
Franks-Bridenstine amendment.
  The New START treaty is perhaps the first unilateral arms control 
treaty the U.S. has ratified in that it is the first treaty where only 
the U.S. has to make reductions in the central limits of the treaty.
  Every six months new data is released by the Department of State 
showing that only the U.S. is reducing its deployed nuclear forces to 
implement this treaty.
  Last month, in Berlin, the President announced that he was changing 
the Nuclear Weapons Employment Guidance and Strategy of the United 
States to support further reductions in United States nuclear forces.
  Never before has a President done something like this.
  Yes, Presidents since Truman have updated the nation's nuclear war 
plan.
  But there is no precedent for a President to tell the national 
security team that, regardless of the nuclear weapons modernization 
programs of China, Russia, Pakistan, North Korea and others, the U.S. 
should plan to reduce our nuclear forces.
  Every other President has asked one simple question when conducting a 
review like this: what level of nuclear forces do I need to ensure that 
a potential enemy or adversary knows that if he attacks the United 
States or our allies, we will have the ability to respond with nuclear 
forces that could result in nothing less than total devastation?
  It has not been explained to me how fewer nuclear weapons in the U.S. 
nuclear deterrent is necessarily better for the country's security.
  When allies see us backing away from our extended deterrent, and 
potential adversaries see us giving up these capabilities while they 
are growing them in practically every way--cascades of proliferation 
cannot be far behind.
  Already we see that allies are concerned with the President's new 
approach.
  For 66 years, since the U.S. used them to end World War II, our 
deterrent has kept the world safe.
  This is not a recipe the Congress will let the President arbitrarily 
change to satisfy a small cloister of arms control and disarmament 
ideologues.
  The reason the Turner-Rogers-Franks-Bridenstine amendment is so 
important is that in this new strategy the President announced, he 
refuses to commit to following the established precedent of only 
pursuing nuclear reductions with another nation through a treaty or a 
congressional-executive agreement that must be enacted by an 
affirmative act of Congress.
  Practically every senior military officer who has testified before 
the House Armed Services Committee on the subject of further nuclear 
force reductions has been clear they must be ``bilateral and 
verifiable'' and that the only way to achieve this is through a treaty.
  Yet, the civilians in the Administration refuse to state that this 
approach supported by the military is also the President's policy.
  This amendment is consistent with language I offered, as Chairman of 
the Strategic Forces Subcommittee that overseas our nation's nuclear 
forces, which was adopted by the House Armed Services Committee and the 
House itself, in the recent FY14 National Defense Authorization Act.
  The President may think he doesn't need Congress when it comes to 
international agreements with states like Russia.
  He may think he can ignore gross violations in arms control 
agreements, like those Russia is engaged in today.
  But he still needs money to implement his policies.
  And that's what we can deny him if he attempts to ignore or 
circumvent the people's elected representatives in Congress.
  I encourage the support of this amendment and I thank Chairman 
Frelinghuysen for his support, leadership, and endurance during this 
long process.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).
  The amendment was agreed to.


          Amendment Offered by Mr. Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico

  Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at 
the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by reducing the amount made available for ``Corps of 
     Engineers-Civil--Expenses'', and increasing the amount made 
     available for ``Corps of Engineers-Civil--Construction'', by 
     $15,000,000.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Mexico is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise to amend H.R. 
2609, the Energy and Water appropriations bill, for the purpose of 
addressing several issues in New Mexico.
  More specifically, my amendment would increase the construction 
account by $15 million to ensure local governments, like the city of 
Rio Rancho, the county of Benalillo and the Middle Rio Grande 
Conservancy District, get reimbursed for the work that they have done 
in conjunction with the Army Corps of Engineers. The Army Corps of 
Engineers works with local governments in New Mexico to construct 
levees, implement flood control measures, and other important 
infrastructure for the safety of the public.
  More specifically, the city of Rio Rancho entered into a 
reimbursement contract with the Army Corps of Engineers and has not 
been paid back for several years due to the lack of appropriations. The 
same goes for the county of Benalillo and the Middle Rio Grande 
Conservancy District, and others across the country.
  This delay in reimbursement has led to interruptions in financing for 
other city projects and also has the potential to hurt the credit 
ratings of these entities if they do not recover these funds via 
reimbursement, as stated in their contracts.
  By increasing the dollar amount in this account, which includes a 
number of programs and accounts that are critical to local 
governments--like engineering, construction, technical assistance, 
flood control, and environmental infrastructure--we can get these 
entities reimbursed and get these liabilities off the books of the Army 
Corps of Engineers to get the projects going.
  Mr. Chairman, local governments have been left holding an IOU from 
the Federal Government for doing work based on good-faith written 
agreements with the Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Chairman, I understand 
that there may be opposition from the Republican majority, but I'm 
hoping I can persuade the chairman to support me in this effort. 
Section 593 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 is under 
which the city of Rio Rancho and these other local governments entered 
into agreements with the Army Corps of Engineers. If the Republican 
majority disagrees with the authority, they should repeal it; but let's 
make these local governments whole.
  When city and local governments enter into reimbursement contracts, 
they expect to be reimbursed. They have annual budgets with the 
expectation they will get paid back. Congress should live up to these 
obligations in the authority given to the agency by Congress. I 
understand the constraints that the subcommittee dealt with with the 
allocations given to them, but we need to make sure that we're working 
to make these local governments

[[Page 11223]]

whole. Again, going forward, if this is an authority that the 
Republican majority feels we should do away with, we should do away 
with it. But let's make these local governments whole.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
gentleman from New Mexico's amendment.
  The gentleman makes the case that there's a need for this 
infrastructure, and maybe there is; but the Corps of Engineers has no 
particular expertise or reason for being the funding source. Especially 
when we're looking at such tight budgets to begin with, we must focus 
the Corps' funding on activities which have the greatest impact on our 
economy and public safety, namely, navigation and flood control--our 
historic responsibility. So I must oppose the amendment and urge my 
colleagues to do so as well.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Ben Ray Lujan).
  The amendment was rejected.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Nugent

  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to bring an action against the United States.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Chairman, since coming to the House of 
Representatives a little over 2 years ago, I have made it a priority to 
revitalize the economy in central Florida. As a result, I have had the 
opportunity to meet with community leaders in my district and the 
surrounding areas to talk about projects that matter the most to them--
dredging of canals and the building of new roads.
  Again and again, I find, however, that the Army Corps of Engineers is 
slow rolling many of these projects, not because they want to, but 
because they're forced to.
  The Corps continues to move the goalpost on these communities. And 
once permits have been given and work has already been done, the Corps 
has come back with fines and penalties and mitigation.
  When I asked the Army Corps what happened with these projects, it's 
the same thing. I constantly hear from the Corps that they're worried 
about being sued. They're worried because the advocacy groups all over 
this country are dedicated to doing nothing other than taking away 
Congress' responsibilities for setting our Nation's laws, regulatory 
policies, and giving it to the courts or the executive branch.
  These activists don't want people of the United States of America or 
their elected officials to have any say in how this country is run. 
They want to force their own agenda on everybody else through the 
courts; and even more disturbing, they're doing it with taxpayer money.
  These groups receive Federal grants; and once they take the Army 
Corps, the EPA, or any other agency to court, they oftentimes get a 
cash settlement or payout to go away. That money goes back into the 
litigation system, furthering the problem.
  Take, for example, the group Earthjustice, which in their tax year of 
2011 nonprofit 990 tax form described themselves as a ``public interest 
law firm'' dedicated to pursuing ``far-reaching, big-impact 
litigation.'' In that filing, Earthjustice used the phrase ``our 
litigation'' or ``our lawsuits'' over a dozen times. Their 2011 filing 
includes seven pages of attorneys' fees that have been awarded to them; 
and that document celebrates the fact that because of the work, the 
Federal Government is forced to back down. They have an entire section 
dedicated to their work to stop the construction of the Keystone XL 
pipeline.
  Moreover, they are doing it with our money. Groups like this get 
Federal dollars through grants. Then they use the money to help fund 
lawsuits against the Federal Government and these agencies. They take 
that settlement money that we pay out, to the tune of $5 million in 
2011 for just one group, one advocacy group, Earthjustice; and, guess 
what, that money comes from the pockets of the American people.
  Whether or not you support the policy goals of groups like 
Earthjustice, every single person in this room should be worried about 
their tactics. Their self-stated mission is to take regulatory power 
out of the hands of Congress and hand it to the courts. The goal is 
diametrically opposed to the vision our Founding Fathers had.
  Nobody in this Chamber should support abdicating our constitutional 
responsibilities to activists who then charge the tab back to United 
States citizens and then come back asking for even more money.
  Madam Chair, I appreciate the work that the chairman has done in 
moving this particular bill through. In discussions with the chairman 
of the committee, we're going to withdraw this amendment because I 
believe that we can work together to try to resolve the fact that these 
groups shouldn't profit on the backs of American taxpayers, blocking 
justice and the ability for these places, communities that I serve and 
others in this great Nation to create jobs.
  With that, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen). Without objection, the amendment 
is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Engel

  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to lease or purchase new light duty vehicles for any 
     executive fleet, or for an agency's fleet inventory, except 
     in accordance with Presidential Memorandum--Federal Fleet 
     Performance, dated May 24, 2011.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Chair, on May 24, 2011, President Obama issued a 
memorandum on Federal fleet performance that requires all new light 
duty vehicles in the Federal fleet to be alternate fuel vehicles, such 
as hybrid, electric, natural gas, or biofuel, by December 31, 2015.
  My amendment echoes the Presidential memorandum by prohibiting funds 
in the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations 
Act of 2014 from being used to lease or purchase new light duty 
vehicles except in accord with the President's memorandum.
  Our transportation sector is by far the biggest reason we send $600 
billion per year to hostile nations to pay for oil at ever-increasing 
costs. But America doesn't need to be dependent on foreign sources of 
oil for transportation fuel. Alternative technologies exist today that, 
when implemented broadly, will allow any alternative fuel to be used in 
America's automotive fleet.
  The Federal Government operates the largest fleet of light duty 
vehicles in America. According to GSA, there are over 660,000 vehicles 
in the Federal fleet, with over 14,000 being used by the Department of 
Veterans Affairs and other departments.
  By supporting a diverse array of vehicle technologies in our Federal 
fleet, we will encourage development of domestic energy resources--
including biomass, natural gas, agricultural waste, hydrogen, renewable 
electricity, methanol, and ethanol.
  When I was in Brazil, I saw how they diversified their fuel by 
greatly expanding their use of ethanol. When people drove to a gas 
station, they saw what a gallon of gasoline would cost and what an 
equivalent amount of ethanol would cost and could decide which

[[Page 11224]]

was better for them. I want Americans to make the same choices. If they 
can do it in Brazil, we can do it here. We can educate people on using 
alternative fuels and let consumers decide what is best for them.
  Expanding the role these energy sources play in our transportation 
economy will help break the leverage over Americans held by foreign 
government-controlled oil companies and will increase our Nation's 
domestic security and protect consumers from price spikes and shortages 
in the world oil markets.
  I have introduced a bill, along with the gentlewoman from Florida, 
that would also take a major step in this direction, and I think this 
policy is something that we need to move. So I ask that everyone 
support the Engel amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I'm pleased to accept the amendment from my friend 
from New York State and his annual advocacy on behalf of this cause.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Garcia

  Mr. GARCIA. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by reducing the amount made available for ``Corps of 
     Engineers-Civil--Expenses'', and by increasing the amount 
     made available for ``Corps of Engineers-Civil--
     Construction'', by $1,000,000.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GARCIA. Madam Chairman, my amendment seeks to increase funding to 
the Army Corps of Engineers' Civil Works Construction account by $1 
million to support flood and storm damage reduction efforts. With 
hurricane season underway, it is important that we support the Corps' 
critical efforts in this area.
  In H.R. 2609, Chairman Frelinghuysen has provided the Corps of 
Engineers with $1.3 billion for projects that can mitigate natural 
disasters, including hurricanes, storms, and floods.
  Having lived through Hurricane Sandy, I know the chairman is well 
aware of the value of these investments, and I would like to thank the 
chairman and the committee for their efforts on our behalf.
  By providing this additional funding for the Corps to conduct 
important activities, my amendment demonstrates a commitment to 
addressing the threat of severe weather events and flooding. The Corps 
has undertaken a number of important flood projects throughout the 
country, and we must continue to provide the funding we need to support 
these efforts.
  Again, I appreciate the efforts of the chairman and his committee's 
work in crafting this bill and supporting the Corps' important work, 
and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I'm pleased to support the amendment. And let me 
thank the gentleman from Florida for his advocacy for his own 
congressional district and his State, and I commend him.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Garcia).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Fleming

  Mr. FLEMING. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to pay the salary of any officer or employee to carry 
     out section 301 of the Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984 (42 
     U.S.C. 16421a; added by section 402 of the American Recovery 
     and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5)).

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FLEMING. Madam Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that 
would stop a loan program created by the infamous 2009 stimulus bill.
  As I and many others have pointed out when the bill was passed, the 
stimulus, which was billed as funding shovel-ready programs, actually 
became a vehicle to bake in higher levels of spending and new 
government programs. As with other government loan programs, we've all 
too often seen abuses in mismanagement, and this program is no 
exception.
  The elimination of the Western Area Power Administration's green 
transmission borrowing authority was recommended in the report to this 
year's House budget; and so if you voted for the budget, I would urge 
you to support this amendment as well.
  I also want to thank my colleagues, Mr. McClintock and Chairman 
Hastings, for their work in the offering and marking up of a bill last 
year to repeal this program.
  As the budget report notes:

       The $3.25 billion borrowing authority in the Western Area 
     Power Administration's Transmission Infrastructure Program 
     provides loans to develop new transmission systems aimed 
     solely at integrating renewable energy.

  This authority was inserted into the stimulus bill without 
opportunity for debate. Of most concern, the authority includes a 
bailout provision that would require American taxpayers to pay 
outstanding balances on projects that private developers failed to pay.
  This bailout provision is particularly problematic because, in 
November 2011, the Department of Energy inspector general issued a 
lengthy management alert on this stimulus borrowing authority. To quote 
from that report:

       Because of a variety of problems, the project is estimated 
     to be 2 years behind schedule and $70 million over budget, 
     essentially out of funds, and currently at a standstill, with 
     no progress being made. Western had not completed a formal 
     root-cause analysis and corrective action plan designed to 
     ensure more effective program safeguards are in place going 
     forward. Because Western has committed $25 million in 
     developmental funding to a potential $3 billion project that 
     would ultimately require an investment of $1.5 billion in 
     Recovery Act borrowing authority, we are issuing this report 
     as a management alert.

  Madam Chairman, this IG report speaks for itself, and I urge my 
colleagues to support the repeal of this failed stimulus program.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. 
I'm not quite sure why he's doing this, but, you know, the American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided $3.25 billion in borrowing 
authority to modernize the electricity grid.
  I believe your amendment focuses on WAPA, the Western Area Power 
marketing authority, solely; is that correct, sir?
  Mr. FLEMING. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. FLEMING. That is correct.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank you very much.
  Now, I don't live out there. I'm from a part of the country that 
doesn't have one of these, but most of America is covered by power 
marketing authorities. If you really look at California, if you look at 
the TVA, regions of the country that have these borrowing authorities, 
and the way they work is that the ratepayers then pay back, over time, 
the costs of that investment.
  We have to invest and modernize our grid. That part of the country is 
growing, and, frankly, they have been returning dollars at a fairly 
steady rate.

[[Page 11225]]

I looked at those figures about a year ago.
  And with the increase in renewables in the West, there's also a need 
to alter the grid and its ability to accept new forms of power. That 
part of the country is growing. The population is just exploding out 
there. And so, therefore, we're going to have a greater use of power 
and more of a need to put it on to the system.
  So I don't see why the gentleman who comes from Louisiana--now, I 
know you've got a lot of oil drilling down there in the gulf and a lot 
of us have voted for that, but I don't really understand the purpose of 
the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. FLEMING. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I'm happy to yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. FLEMING. These companies, they certainly are welcome to borrow 
money and invest it themselves. This puts the taxpayer on the hook, and 
they're not delivering on these loans. They're well behind. And 
eventually, the taxpayers, as in so many cases from the stimulus bill, 
are going to be picking up the tab.
  If it's so valuable and it returns investment over time, then fine; 
let them use their own capital.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I hear what the gentleman is saying, but they actually do 
pay it back through usage. Just like you pay a utility bill and it goes 
back to the company, essentially WAPA is a company, and it borrows and 
then it pays back. And so these funds are going to be paid back over 
time.
  I wish I had one in my area. I think it would really help us out a 
lot.
  But I have to oppose the gentleman's amendment. I think it would be 
very counterproductive to hurt any part of our country and their power 
grid system, their ability to modernize their power grid system.
  The gentleman has, I think, Southeast Power marketing authority. I 
don't know if that covers Louisiana or not. But different parts of the 
country have different systems that are in place, and I wouldn't want 
to take away the West's ability to power themselves and to do so in a 
very cost-effective manner.
  Mr. FLEMING. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. FLEMING. And again, I would just have to say, there's a dynamic 
to money. And yes, some of it may be paid back. But at the end of the 
day, if the money is not fully paid back, or paid back at the 
appropriate rate and the taxpayers have to make up the difference, then 
I would say that certainly in the private sector that wouldn't work 
out.
  And I think that we should hold government, nongovernment, all those 
who handle money, and particularly taxpayer money, we need to hold them 
to the same standard. And they're not delivering on that return of 
investment.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Well, I would beg to disagree. Reclaiming my time, I'm 
glad the gentleman stated that, but I think that you will hear strongly 
from them that they, in fact, are paying back, and they have a good 
rate of repayment.
  I remember our former colleague, Norm Dicks, if I said anything 
against WAPA, boy, I'd be in big trouble because they do have a very 
good rate of repayment back. And, in fact, they have returned money 
consistently and paid back their original loan. So I think that they're 
free-floating now, and I think they have a very, very good record.
  So I would oppose the gentleman's amendment very strongly in support 
of our colleagues in the West and their need for power and modernizing 
their electricity grid. And I urge my colleagues to vote against the 
gentleman's amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLEMING. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana 
will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mr. Garamendi

  Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by reducing the amount made available for ``Atomic 
     Energy Defense Activities--National Nuclear Security 
     Administration--Weapons Activities'', and increasing the 
     amount made available for ``Corps of Engineers-Civil--
     Construction'', by $100,000,000.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Chair, I want to commend the staff, the Chair, 
the ranking member, and all of those who have worked so hard over the 
last couple of days to get this bill processed and to deal with all the 
amendments. It's been an arduous task and one that has created, I am 
told, far more amendments than have ever been presented on any such 
appropriation bill in the past.
  And there's a reason for that. The reason is that this appropriation 
bill is a direct result of the, what we fondly call--or not so fondly 
call--the Ryan Republican budget. This is really the first opportunity 
that America has to see the effects of a very austere budget, one that 
really decimates programs all across America, programs that are of 
great value and great utility.
  This particular subcommittee was presented with the mark, that is, 
the amount of money that it had available to it as a result of that 
budget that was passed by the majority in this House. Now, that 
budget's not law. There has been no conference committee. In fact, the 
majority in this House has refused to set up a conference committee, 
that is, to put in names for that conference committee. So this is 
really a one-House budget that is being carried out here with this 
legislation.
  It is a remarkable and an extraordinarily important moment in which 
the American public has a chance to see exactly what austerity, as 
presented to us by the majority, means. It means that those research 
programs that allow America the opportunity to advance its energy 
programs, to take control of the energy programs of the future, the 
renewable energy programs, the nuclear energy programs, and on and on, 
those opportunities are lost.

                              {time}  1915

  I know the committee was faced with a very stringent budget, an 
austerity budget. They made decisions that are, in my view, 
extraordinarily detrimental to America. Specifically, the committee--
the majority, that is--made a decision to take the money that was 
available and remove it from those programs that are the energy future 
of this Nation--wind, solar, conservation, biofuels, automobiles that 
are efficient, houses that are efficient, programs that are absolutely 
crucial to this Nation's future and to the world's future because they 
deal specifically with climate change--and move money from those 
programs to the Nuclear Weapons program and to programs that are not 
needed.
  Consider for a moment that the United States has over 5,500 nuclear 
bombs, which are sufficient to end life on this planet. It's over if 
those were to be used. And the military says we don't need them. These 
are programs that are inefficient, ineffective, and are the sinkholes 
of American taxpayers' money. The majority decided to move the money 
there. Okay. Who are we going to use those things on? We can't. We 
don't need them for deterrence. But yet that's where the money goes. 
Not only does the money come from those energy programs that we 
absolutely need for our future and for our economy's future, the money 
comes from programs that are absolutely essential for the well-being of 
Americans today and tomorrow.
  The Army Corps of Engineers protects our citizens with its levees and

[[Page 11226]]

with its flood control projects. We've heard this over and over again 
for the last 2 days. And yet the majority continues to insist to spend 
the money on these nuclear weapons, not on those things that are 
essential for today's life and essential for the well-being of people 
now, as the storm season arrives here on the east coast with 
hurricanes, in the Gulf States with hurricanes, and in my State of 
California, in my district, where I have more than 1,500 miles of 
levees. People are at risk.
  This amendment would take $100 million from these weapons systems and 
put that money directly into the Army Corps of Engineers Construction 
account so that the Army Corps of Engineers can protect our citizens 
today.
  I ask for an ``aye'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I rise to oppose the amendment. We've 
gone over this ground several times so I'll be brief.
  All of us here strongly support investments in the Corps' work and 
their projects, particularly those projects with the greatest benefit 
to public safety and the economy, namely flood control and navigation. 
But this amendment proposes to pay for additional Corps construction by 
diverting funds needed for our nuclear weapons stockpile for national 
security. And that is the most critical priority in our bill.
  And so I strongly oppose the amendment. His amendment is unacceptable 
because it is an issue of national security, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. MURPHY of Florida. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MURPHY of Florida. Madam Chair, I rise today to voice my support 
for vital funding for important Army Corps of Engineers' projects 
across the Palm Beach-Treasure Coast district that I proudly represent.
  This bill includes funding for the critically important Indian River 
Lagoon C-44 project, which will greatly improve the water quality in my 
district. For those of you unfamiliar with this local treasure, it is 
the most diverse estuary in North America, many of its species already 
threatened or endangered. But due to extreme pollution, local officials 
have issued health warnings advising residents to not contact this 
waterway. Tragically, it has also witnessed a major die-off of its 
population of manatees, dolphins, pelicans, and other crucial species. 
Completion of this project is essential to protecting this vital 
ecosystem as well as improving the water quality throughout the region.
  The C-44 project is part of broader Everglades restoration efforts 
that the Army Corps is tasked with, which will protect this unique and 
important habitat. Furthermore, the Everglades provide drinking water 
for one in three Floridians, and restoration efforts also have a 3-to-1 
return on investment in the local economy. Completion of the overall 
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Project will shore up Florida's 
access to clean drinking water and improve the local environment and 
economy.
  Locally, Everglades restoration is part of the solution to the 
harmful discharges that are currently being released from Lake 
Okeechobee into the St. Lucie River on the Treasure Coast. By returning 
water flows south of the lake and improving water quality in the area 
through projects such as C-44, we can mitigate the effects these 
harmful discharges from the lake continue to have on our local 
waterways year after year, devastating the environment and the economy.
  Furthermore, the Army Corps is responsible for repairing the Herbert 
Hoover Dike, which surrounds Lake Okeechobee and is listed as one of 
the most at-risk of failure in the Nation. This project keeps local 
residents safe from devastating flooding that could occur if the dike 
were to fail. The Army Corps has already been struggling to meet its 
obligations on this and other projects, which is why we must continue 
to provide funding or risk further delaying these important ongoing 
jobs.
  In addition to the important Indian River Lagoon, Lake Okeechobee, 
and Herbert Hoover Dike projects this bill supports, it also provides 
important funding for inlet dredging projects. Being able to access and 
safely navigate our local waterways and ports is essential for public 
safety and our economy. The same can be said for those shore 
restoration programs that this bill also funds, returning our local 
beaches to their pre-storm conditions after extreme weather events such 
as Hurricane Sandy.
  If you speak with any of my constituents, they'll tell you that all 
of these projects are vital to their daily way of life and to the 
health of the local population as well as the economy. We must provide 
certainty and continue the Corps' funding or risk devastating their 
progress on these important projects. Jeopardizing funding for these 
ongoing projects would only further aggravate the serious problem of 
toxic discharges in my district, prevent progress on essential water 
quality restoration projects, and have an overall negative impact on 
our local environment and, in turn, our local economy. To me, that's 
simply not an option.
  Madam Chair, we have the obligation to provide adequate resources for 
programs that protect public safety, water quality, and our 
environment, such as these. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting the underlying legislation to continue to fund these 
projects that are critical to the well-being of the Treasure Coast and 
Palm Beaches.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment that 
would eliminate funding for the vitally important Appalachian Regional 
Commission (ARC).
  The ARC was established in 1965 to focus on the profound economic 
needs of the Appalachia Region. It was designed to provide the kinds of 
basic investment that would assist in strengthening rural communities 
long-overlooked by the government and ensure that hard-working, loyal 
citizens could successfully build their communities and their careers 
and contribute fully to the well-being of the Nation.
  Since its establishment, the ARC has had measurable success in 
addressing the needs of Appalachian families and communities and its 
good works have improved the outlook for the entire region.
  The ARC operates in partnership with State and local governments to 
help make the best, most strategically effective use of Federal 
investments, and, in the process, leverages private investments to help 
create well-paying jobs and lasting improvements to local economies. In 
Fiscal Year 2012 alone, ARC invested approximately $66 million in 
projects that leveraged over $267 million in private-sector investment, 
a 4 to 1 ratio, and helped to create or retain over 20,000 jobs.
  In my State, Appalachian Regional Commission investment has meant 
that thousands of children could turn on the water faucet and drink 
safe water. It has spurred the creation of small businesses and 
provided needed funding that enabled rural towns to build basic 
infrastructure essential to attract new economic opportunities. It has 
enabled working men and women to receive training and find nearby jobs 
to rear their families, rather than having to rely on government 
assistance or leave their homes and the State they love simply to earn 
a living.
  It is said that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. 
Cutting a program with proven success at cost-effectively creating jobs 
and improving the economy of an entire region at this time is 
senseless. I urge the House to recognize the immense value of fully 
funding the ARC as a key component to achieving renewed economic 
strength throughout our Nation and to vote against this amendment.
  Mr. SANFORD. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of this amendment 
to eliminate five regional commissions that waste taxpayer dollars. 
These programs were initially formed with the mandate to improve the 
lives of those who live in impoverished areas. However, they have 
instead veered from this mandate by routinely allocating funds to 
projects that not only fall under state and local responsibilities, but 
also projects that benefit only those who live in more economically 
developed areas.
  For example, the Northern Border Regional Commission has granted: 
$250,000 to construct a tower to improve cell phone coverage in New 
Hampshire, $250,000 to construct a 93-mile, four-season, multi-use 
trail across northern Vermont and $160,000 to promote

[[Page 11227]]

and raise awareness of the maple syrup industry in New York.
  These examples of government waste are not just confined to the 
Northern Border Regional Commission. A similar organization called the 
Delta Regional Commission, which spans from Mississippi to Southern 
Illinois, granted: $150,000 to build a tornado safe room in a Missouri 
hospital and $47,000 for updating a sprinkler system at a business 
incubator in Illinois. While there may be a need for these projects, 
they do not fall under the original mandate of these commissions. I 
believe that for government programs to be effective, they must be 
focused.
  The problem is that these projects do not help those that the 
regional commissions were originally created for--Americans living 
below the poverty line. The Obama administration, along with the 
Government Accountability Office, has identified these programs as 
wasteful and duplicative while possessing no track record of success.
  Madam Chair, eliminating these programs will save American taxpayers 
$90 million and work towards reducing the national debt by targeting 
wasteful spending.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Luetkemeyer

  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for the study of the Missouri River Projects 
     authorized in section 108 of the Energy and Water Development 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2009 (division C of 
     Public Law 111-8).

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. The Missouri and Mississippi River basins have faced 
major challenges over the past few years due to both extreme flooding 
and droughts. This devastation, combined with the sluggish economy and 
our aging inland waterways infrastructure, means that now more than 
ever we must be focused and responsible with taxpayer-funded river 
projects.
  My amendment would prohibit funding for the Missouri River Authorized 
Purposes Study, also known as MRAPS. This $25 million earmarked study 
comes on the heels of a comprehensive $35 million, 17-year study that 
showed that the current authorized purposes are important and should be 
maintained.
  This Congress and this administration need to focus on protecting 
human life and property by maintaining the safety and soundness of our 
levees. We also must support the important commercial advantages 
provided to us for our inland waterway system.
  The Missouri River moves goods to the market and is an important tool 
in both domestic and international trade. That's why American Waterways 
Operators, the Coalition to Protect the Missouri River, the Missouri 
Farm Bureau, and the Missouri Corn Growers Group support this 
amendment.
  This study puts in jeopardy not only the lower Missouri River but 
also the flow of the Mississippi River, which could create devastating 
consequences for navigation and transportation, resulting in barriers 
for waterway operators, agriculture, and every product that depends on 
the Missouri and the Mississippi Rivers to get it to market.
  The current authorized uses of the Missouri River provide necessary 
recourses and translate into continued economic stability not only for 
Missourians, but also for many Americans living throughout the Missouri 
and lower Mississippi River basins. This study is duplicative and 
wasteful of taxpayers' dollars. On this exact issue we've already spent 
17 years and $35 million on hundreds of public meetings and expensive 
litigation.
  I offered identical language during our first debate on the fiscal 
year 2011 continuing resolution. That amendment passed by a vote of 
245-176. In the fiscal year debates of 2012 and 2013, the exact 
amendment respectively passed by voice vote and by a vote of 242-168, 
and was later signed into law by President Obama. I appreciate my 
colleagues who offered their support and hope to have their support 
again.
  Madam Chair, there's no doubt in my mind that water resources receive 
too little funding. It is time for the Federal Government to refocus 
and reprioritize to create safer, more efficient infrastructure for our 
inland waterways and stop spending hard-earned taxpayer dollars 
unnecessarily.
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. HIMES. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Connecticut is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HIMES. I rise briefly to engage the chairman and the ranking 
member in a colloquy.
  First, I would like to thank Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking 
Member Kaptur for their work on this bill and in particular for their 
willingness to hear my concerns regarding the needs of U.S. Army Corps 
of Engineers. I think I speak for all of us when I say that a well-
funded Army Corps means good jobs and important infrastructure 
improvements in the regions helped by their projects. Of particular 
interest to me is the special role that the Army Corps plays in 
mitigating the impact of floods caused by an increasing number of 
severe weather events in our communities.
  I know that I'm not the only Member in this room whose district was 
ravaged by Superstorm Sandy as it swept up the east coast last year. 
Chairman Frelinghuysen's district in New Jersey was also severely 
affected by the storm. And Sandy is just one example of the magnitude 
of damage our cities and towns suffer year after year when they are not 
adequately prepared. With limited resources available after a storm 
like Sandy, flood mitigation efforts have become more important than 
ever. An ounce of prevention is, as they say, worth a pound of cure.
  Madam Chairman, back in 2010, I was able to secure an authorization 
for the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct flood mitigation studies in 
my area--studies that would culminate in important recommendations for 
preventing future flood damage in Fairfield County like that which 
occurred during Sandy, Irene, and countless other storms in recent 
years. Unfortunately, with the current backlog at the Corps, it is 
unlikely that these studies or any other so-called New Start projects 
will receive the funding they need to move forward as promised and 
needed years ago.
  I know there are dozens, if not hundreds, of projects waiting for 
Army Corps funding, and I have no delusion that my district is more 
deserving than others of this funding. But perhaps it is time to 
reevaluate the necessity of these older projects, re-prioritizing the 
projects that are still necessary and those that are most urgent. We 
must find a way to begin new projects and ensure our cities and towns 
are prepared for the next big storm.
  I would ask the chairman and ranking member whether this ban on New 
Start projects is something that merits further consideration, and I 
yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Himes of Connecticut makes a good point about 
the importance of making infrastructure investments before major 
disasters can occur. I share his concerns about the backlog of Army 
Corps of Engineers projects, particularly in the backdrop of 
communities throughout the New England and the Mid-Atlantic area that 
continue to rebuild after one of the worst storms in our Nation's 
history.
  I want to assure the gentleman that the committee's position on New

[[Page 11228]]

Starts is reconsidered each and every year. We take a look at the 
funding requirements of ongoing studies and projects, new studies and 
projects, and overall funding levels for certain accounts.
  I commend the gentleman for his attention to this issue. I look 
forward to working with him to address these new needs at the earliest 
appropriate time, and I yield back to the gentleman.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. HIMES. I look forward to working with the chairman as well.
  I yield now to the ranking member, the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I join Chairman Frelinghuysen and 
Representative Himes in emphasizing the importance of the Army Corps of 
Engineers projects.
  The Army Corps of Engineers has an important presence in the Great 
Lakes region, operating an electrified barrier in the Chicago Area 
Waterway System to keep the invasive Asian carp from entering the Great 
Lakes and devastating the fishing industry and ecosystem of one-fifth 
of the world's freshwater. So I appreciate the gentleman from 
Connecticut for acknowledging the importance of Corps projects beyond 
the eastern seaboard.
  I agree that the backlog of Army Corps projects is preventing the 
Corps from taking on new projects in a time-effective manner, which is 
particularly problematic as we approach hurricane season once again. I 
look forward to working with Mr. Himes in deciding how we can ensure 
new projects get the funding they need while also honoring those worthy 
projects that have been waiting for some time now.
  Mr. HIMES. I thank the ranking member and look forward to working 
with her on this as well, and yield back the balance of my time.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Luetkemeyer

  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the dais.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to continue the study conducted by the Army Corps of 
     Engineers pursuant to section 5018(a)(1) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 2007.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, from extreme flooding to extreme 
drought, the United States has been hit very hard over the past few 
years. The families who live and work along the Missouri River have 
endured great hardship.
  Though it's one of our Nation's greatest resources, the Missouri 
River would produce extreme, erosive regular flooding and be mostly 
unfit for navigation if not for aggressive, long-term management by the 
Army Corps of Engineers.
  Congress first authorized the Missouri River Bank Stabilization and 
Navigation Project (BSNP) in 1912 with the intention of mitigating 
flood risk and maintaining a navigable channel from Sioux City, Iowa, 
to the mouth of the river in St. Louis. Though the BSNP's construction 
was completed in the 1980s, the Corps' ability to make adjustments as 
needed remains crucial to this day.
  President Obama, in his fiscal year budget of 2014, requested $72 
million for the Missouri River Recovery Program, which would primarily 
go towards the funding of environmental restoration studies and 
projects. This funding dwarfs the insufficient $8.4 million that was 
requested for the entire operations and maintenance of the 
aforementioned BSNP. It is preposterous to think that environmental 
projects are more important than the protection of human life.
  I do not take for granted the importance of river ecosystems. I grew 
up near the Missouri River, as did many of my constituents. Yet we have 
reached a point in our Nation where we value the welfare of fish and 
birds more than the welfare of our fellow human beings. Our priorities 
are backwards, Madam Chair.
  My amendment will eliminate the Missouri River Ecosystem Recovery 
Program, MRERP, a study that has become little more than a tool by some 
for the promotion of returning the river to its most natural state with 
little regard for flood control, navigation, trade, power generation, 
or the people who depend on the Missouri River for their livelihoods.
  The end of the study will in no way jeopardize the Corps' ability to 
meet the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. MRERP is one of no 
fewer than 70 environmental and ecological studies focused on the 
Missouri River. The people who have had to foot the bill for these 
studies--many of which take years to complete and are ultimately 
inconclusive--are the very people who have lost their farms, their 
businesses, and their homes.
  Our vote today will also show our constituents that this Congress is 
aware of the gross disparity between the funding for environmental 
efforts and the funding for the protection of our citizens. During the 
debate on fiscal year 2012 and 2013 appropriations, the House passed 
this exact language, which was ultimately signed into law by President 
Obama. It is supported by the American Waterways Operators, the 
Coalition to Protect the Missouri River, the Missouri Farm Bureau, and 
the Missouri Corn Growers Association.
  It is time for Congress to take a serious look at water development 
funding priorities, and it is time to send a message to the Federal 
entities that manage our waterways. I urge my colleagues to support 
this amendment and to support our Nation's river communities and 
encourage more balance in Federal funding for water infrastructure and 
management.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I rise to express my opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment and my support for a river system that works.
  The Water Resources Development Act of 2007--which was passed with 
such bipartisan support that it overcame a Presidential veto--
authorized the Corps to undertake the Missouri River Ecosystem 
Restoration Plan and develop the Missouri River Recovery Implementation 
Committee to consult on the study. This authority provided a venue for 
collaboration between a 70-member stakeholder group of tribes, States, 
stakeholder groups, and Federal agencies to develop a shared vision and 
comprehensive plan for the restoration of the Missouri River ecosystem.
  By prohibiting the Corps from expending any 2013 funds on a study and 
a committee, we continue the delay that started with the same 
shortsighted amendment that was adopted last year, sadly. This will 
lead to further erosion of trust in the delicate partnerships in the 
basin.
  While the Corps will continue to comply with the endangered species 
requirements through other activities, I believe there is a role for a 
long-term plan for the basin. We face the same sort of issue in my part 
of the country where we have rivers and lakes that carry commercial 
trade, but we also have an ecosystem that we are a part of. And we are 
learning, as a world, how to deal with the natural systems of which we 
are all a part.
  So I think what's been incredible with the Missouri River System is 
to see some of the flooding that has been prevented because of the 
Corps' work for a century now. I think all the American people support 
efforts to try to contain the power of that river at times when it 
could flood communities and harm both the people and our developed 
environment.
  But I don't really support the gentleman's amendment because I do 
think there is a role for the ecosystem to be contemplated when long-
term planning is done. With what's happening with rainfall, what's 
happening with population explosion and so forth, it's more incumbent 
upon us to work together and try to figure out how to work through 
those partnerships.
  So, sadly, I oppose the amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to 
do so.

[[Page 11229]]

  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Madam Chair, I move to strike the 
last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Madam Chair, I rise to engage in a 
colloquy with the chairman and ranking member on the Laboratory 
Directed Research and Development program at the National Nuclear 
Security Administration.
  The Laboratory Directed Research and Development, LDRD, program at 
the National Nuclear Security Administration's national laboratories 
has, over the past two decades, made it possible for these labs to 
develop capabilities that have been critical to meeting the future 
mission needs via high-risk, high-payoff R&D. For example, at Los 
Alamos National Laboratory in my district, LDRD has supported a key 
technology that is now being applied toward the detection of nuclear 
and radiological threats and is a winner of this year's R&D 100 awards.
  LDRD is also very important to recruiting and retaining top 
scientists and engineers. At Los Alamos, LDRD supports about one-half 
of the post-docs who have gone on to become the lab's permanent 
employees and is one of the key and leading sources of new lab 
employees.
  The funding for the program is derived through a certain percentage 
of each lab's operating budget. Currently, that percentage is limited 
to not more than 8 percent. The bill we are considering today would 
lower that to be not more than 4.5 percent. I am very concerned that 
such a low level could harm the national labs' ability to meet future 
mission needs and ask the chairman and ranking member to work with us 
in making sure that the levels allowed for LDRD do not adversely impact 
the national security capabilities of the labs.
  With that, Madam Chair, I would yield to the gentlelady from New 
Mexico (Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham).
  Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico. I thank the gentleman from 
New Mexico.
  Madam Chair, America is facing security, economic, and environmental 
challenges that are unparalleled in our history. Our national 
laboratories have a unique set of assets we can leverage to meet these 
challenges.
  Projects financed by LDRD have allowed the National Nuclear Security 
Agency to rapidly respond to unforeseen national security needs. In 
1988, Sandia National Labs, located in my district, made a breakthrough 
in parallel computing that resulted in the ability to compute extremely 
complicated numerical simulations to ensure the safety and reliability 
of our nuclear weapons stockpile without the need for nuclear tests. As 
a result, we have not tested a nuclear weapon since 1993.
  The benefits of parallel processing supercomputers have also improved 
the competitiveness of U.S. industries in the global economy. They were 
used to map the human genome, develop new drugs, and shorten the 
development time of products by finding mistakes before they end up in 
prototypes.
  Parallel processing supercomputers have also greatly increased our 
understanding of atmospheric changes through global atmospheric 
circulation simulation. These advancements have helped provide an 
understanding of the climate that cannot be determined by theory or by 
other experiments.
  LDRD investments have been historically important in advancing the 
state of high-performance computing. Ongoing LDRD investments are 
enabling next-generation computing hardware and software approaches 
that will eventually lead to much better performance.
  I am confident that we can work with the chairman and the ranking 
member to fund LDRD at levels that will maintain our vital national 
security assets, and I thank them for their willingness to work with us 
on this issue.
  Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Madam Chair, I yield to the 
chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I appreciate my colleagues from New Mexico raising 
their concern for the long-term vitality of the National Nuclear 
Security Administration's laboratories.
  I look forward to working with both of you to make sure that the 
levels allowed for the Laboratory Directed Research and Development, or 
the LDRD, program do not adversely impact the national security 
capability of these remarkable laboratories.
  Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Madam Chair, I yield to the 
gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman.
  LDRD is an important program for the labs to recruit and retain the 
top talent that is needed to accomplish their mission. I join the chair 
in agreeing to work with our colleagues so that the national security 
capabilities of the labs are not adversely impacted by the levels 
allowed for LDRD.
  Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Madam Chair, I thank the chairman 
and the ranking member for their service and for agreeing to work with 
us on this important issue.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                     Amendment Offered by Mrs. Noem

  Mrs. NOEM. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ____.  None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used to issue rules or regulations to establish a fee 
     for surplus water from Missouri River reservoirs.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from South Dakota is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mrs. NOEM. Madam Chair, this amendment is quite simple. It would 
block the Corps of Engineers from issuing rules or regulations that 
would charge a fee for surplus water on the Missouri River.
  I offer this amendment to stop an overreach by the Corps of Engineers 
in its attempt to charge constituents in South Dakota, North Dakota, 
and Montana for what is legally theirs--water from the Missouri River.
  The States of South and North Dakota sacrificed hundreds of thousands 
of acres of prime farmland during the creation of the dams on the 
Missouri; but in doing so, they did not give up the right to their own 
water from the river. The Flood Control Act that created the dams and 
reservoirs specifically said:

       It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress to 
     recognize the interests and rights of States in determining 
     the development of watersheds within their borders and 
     likewise their interests and rights in water utilization and 
     control.

  Madam Chair, I don't believe congressional intent could be any 
clearer in this instance. Rural water systems, businesses and tribes up 
and down the Missouri River rely on it for water and have been pulling 
water from the river for nearly 60 years without a fee.
  Let us not forget that 2 years ago at this time residents up and down 
the Missouri were suffering one of the greatest floods that the river 
has ever seen. Many are still working to get back to the way things 
were, to the extent that it's even ever going to be possible. Now the 
Corps has brought forth this proposal that violates long-held 
historical and legal precedents to charge us for water that belongs to 
us.
  I want to thank the chairman for being a leader on this bill that we 
have on the floor today and for the opportunity to talk about this 
amendment that is so important to the people in South Dakota, North 
Dakota, and Montana. I urge my colleagues to stop the Corps from 
overreaching and ask them to support my amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1945

  Mr. CRAMER. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Dakota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CRAMER. Madam Chair, I rise in support of this important 
amendment.

[[Page 11230]]

One wouldn't think that the Congress of the United States should have 
to pass amendments on appropriations bills to ensure that the 
Constitution is upheld by the bureaucracy or that long-held promises 
made by the Federal Government are kept.
  That's exactly what this amendment does. Not only will it ensure that 
the Corps of Engineers no longer engages in charging the States of 
North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana and its citizens and the sovereign 
tribes along the Missouri River for the water that is rightfully 
theirs, but it also frees up the Corps to engage in more productive 
activities that we've heard a lot about tonight.
  I am proud to be a sponsor and proud to stand here and support this 
important amendment, and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  I am actually very familiar with the effect of rising water costs on 
a community. In my own hometown in Ohio, water costs will increase by 
56.5 percent over the next 5 years, with the average ratepayers bill 
increasing from $125 to $300 per year. Such a large increase takes a 
significant toll on hard-pressed families, especially on seniors living 
on fixed incomes. This is being done in order to construct major water 
facilities that are seriously out of date and in need of replacement.
  The amendment being offered here tonight must be viewed, I think, in 
terms of equity. Currently, the vast majority of local communities 
benefiting from water supply from Corps of Engineers projects are 
charged fees for storage.
  The Corps is working to review the current policy case by case in 
favor of a more consistent policy across the country. My community 
receives nothing from the Corps in the way of water storage or 
capacity. The region in question has already benefited from cost-free 
water storage over several years. It seems to be unfair to provide 
special treatment to one specific region, or create an exception for 
one region, from a nationwide policy.
  Given the sharp fiscal constraints to agencies funded by this bill, 
it is particularly difficult to justify such a localized subsidy 
because we have pressing needs across our country and, frankly, not 
sufficient funds to meet all the water needs facing our Nation. 
Frankly, I think these water needs are going to be very significant as 
time goes on because our population will double. It already has doubled 
since the last century, and tripled. By 2050, they expect 500 million 
people to be living in this country. The amount of water isn't going to 
change. It's a resource that just keeps replenishing. We have to treat 
it because we have more people and it's going to cost more to do this.
  I respectfully rise in opposition to the gentlelady's amendment, urge 
my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Speier

  Ms. SPEIER. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  The amount otherwise made available by this Act 
     for ``Department of Energy--Energy Programs--Fossil Energy 
     Research and Development'' is hereby reduced by $30,000,000.

  Ms. SPEIER (during the reading). Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent 
that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. SPEIER. Madam Chair, do we suddenly have extra money lying 
around, because I'm trying to figure out why we are so committed to 
wasting it.
  Budget challenges are forcing us to reexamine our investments. Adding 
$30 million beyond the President's request to support fossil fuel 
research is a foolish waste of taxpayer dollars that are better used to 
invest in the future and paying off our deficit. We simply cannot 
afford to spend taxpayer dollars on research the private sector can do 
better, and taxpayers should not be asked to provide additional support 
to an industry that consistently has record-breaking profits.
  Our energy sector has some of the most promising ideas and 
technologies in the world. Our energy policy, however, is horribly 
outdated.
  H.R. 2609 slashes research and development for renewable energy by 
some 60 percent and adds additional money that the administration 
neither wants nor needs to research fossil fuels and clean coal. At the 
same time, it continues to spend far too much on fossil fuel R&D. In 
fact, we dole out more fossil fuel subsidies than any other country--
more than $500 billion in 2011. They often go to expensive projects 
with little upside.
  The fact is we don't need to spend taxpayer money this way. Fossil 
fuel companies are highly profitable, posting some of the highest 
profits in the world, and they can shoulder their own R&D costs. This 
is a clear example of duplication. Cuts to fossil fuel research are 
supported by the Fiscal Commission and the fiscal watchdog groups like 
Taxpayers for Common Sense. These kinds of cuts are necessary to get 
back on the right fiscal path, and these are the kinds of cuts our 
constituents elected us to enact.
  This kind of research can, is, and should largely be funded by the 
private sector, since industry has market incentives to make new 
discoveries in this area. Government spending should be focused on 
areas where there are emerging markets, where public funds are needed 
to support basic research.
  My amendment reduces our reliance on ``old energy.'' The amendment 
simply strikes $30 million in R&D from fossil fuels and commits it to 
deficit reduction, what we've all been clambering for, and maintains 
the President's requested level of funding for this research.
  Our biggest innovators succeed because they are forward thinking. Our 
energy policy needs to do the same.
  We need to stop funding the past at the expense of the future. It is 
the fiscally responsible thing to do.
  I ask that you support my amendment, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I rise to oppose the amendment. This 
amendment would cut funding, which has already been cut today, for the 
Fossil Energy Research and Development program, on top of reductions 
that we also took of 16 percent in our bill before we brought our bill 
to the floor.
  We all know that American families and businesses are struggling to 
pay high gas prices. This Fossil Energy Research and Development 
program holds the potential, once and for all, to prevent future high 
gas prices and substantially increase our energy security. To cut it 
further would be dangerous and counterproductive, so I strongly oppose 
the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. SPEIER. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
will be postponed.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

[[Page 11231]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the 
committee for this piece of legislation that's before us today.
  Throughout the entire bill, we can see efforts that will result in 
more efficient use of taxpayer dollars. Additionally, it is encouraging 
to see the emphasis on certain research accounts at the National Energy 
Technology Laboratory.
  It is clear that you understand the challenges that the fossil fuel 
industry faces in trying to meet the excessive regulations imposed by 
this administration. However, I am concerned that the $78 million cut 
from current funding in this amended legislation represents a 16 
percent reduction in funds and will have dire consequences for NETL's 
ability to manage grants and contracts to conduct the necessary 
research and development of fossil fuel energy. America depends on 
fossil resources for over 80 percent of our energy needs and will 
continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
  As you know, the funding for this research and development has led to 
horizontal gas drilling, reductions in acid rain, increases in power 
plant efficiencies, and carbon capture and utilization efforts for 
enhanced oil recovery.
  I hope, Mr. Chairman, that you will continue to agree that, in order 
for us to continue this vital research in fossil fuel energy, NETL 
needs to be properly funded and that you will work with us in an effort 
to try to restore the 16 percent reduction in the funding for this 
account.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McKINLEY. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I want to thank my colleague from 
West Virginia for his continued leadership on fossil fuel research. He 
knows it firsthand. He is a strong advocate. He is a strong supporter 
of NETL, of which he speaks, which is an important center for a 
critical, critical purpose.
  As he knows well, fossil energy provides 82 percent of our Nation's 
energy needs, and research into tapping these resources as efficiently 
and as cleanly as possible is vital to our energy security.
  I look forward to continuing to work with him and our other 
colleagues who have interest in fossil energy research through 
conference to ensure this vital program has adequate resources.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, thank you for those comments.
  These research projects are in every State in the Nation and almost 
every congressional district throughout our country. Every one of our 
colleagues has a vested interest in this laboratory operating 
efficiently, putting us into the next generation of power and use and 
efficiency. We have appreciated your leadership and commitment to this 
program.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Grayson

  Mr. GRAYSON. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. _. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by reducing the amount made available for ``Energy 
     Programs--Fossil Energy Research and Development'', and 
     increasing the amount made available for ``Corps of 
     Engineers-Civil--Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies'', by 
     $10,000,000.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Chairman Frelinghuysen, thank you for the constructive 
conversation that we had earlier today about this amendment. I regret 
that we weren't able to come to some solution to the problem that it's 
meant to address, but I appreciate your time and your sensitivity to 
the needs of coastal communities.
  The amendment before us would increase the Army Corps of Engineers' 
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account by $10 million. It would 
do so by moving the same amount from the Department of Energy's Fossil 
Energy Research and Development account.
  The Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account provides 
communities across the Nation with the funds that are necessary to 
prepare for floods, hurricanes, and other natural disasters. It also 
provides support for emergency operations, repairs, and other 
activities in response to those disasters.
  Currently, the committee has requested that we fund this important 
account by only $28 million. My amendment would increase that amount by 
approximately one-third. The Fossil Energy Research and Development 
account does what its name implies; it conducts research pertaining to 
the extraction and processing and use of mineral substances.
  Unlike the Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account, this one 
will be funded at $450 million, almost $30 million above the 
President's request. My amendment would simply reduce this account by 
only 2 percent, while still allowing for a $20 million increase above 
the President's request for that account.
  We as a body have tried the sequestration approach. We have axed 
accounts evenly across the board, but that's not an approach that our 
constituents favor. It is incumbent upon us to make rational choices at 
some point to prioritize funding for those items that are most 
important to our constituents and to America.

                              {time}  2000

  Madam Chair, this is what a rational approach looks like. Fossil 
fuels don't need a subsidy. Oil is selling at over $100 a barrel. Oil 
companies have more than enough profits with which to conduct their own 
research. In contrast, there is no profit to be had for communities in 
disaster preparation--merely self-preservation. These are the efforts 
that demand our time and our attention and that demand taxpayer funds. 
The cost of recovering from natural disasters is only increasing. A 
rational approach to the problem is to put more effort into preparing 
for them and mitigating the results.
  As a Member from a State that has a tropical storm scheduled to make 
landfall this weekend, I hope that this body will support not only my 
amendment but the Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account as 
well.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment, but I 
appreciate his persistence in trying to find an offset.
  I, of course, share the gentleman's support for smart investments in 
our Nation's water resources infrastructure. In fact, as I've said on a 
number of occasions, the Corps of Engineers was really one of our 
primary priorities in putting our bill together. The total program 
level is $50 million above the budget request and almost $150 million 
above the post-sequester level.
  The Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account specifically is at 
the President's request. These funds will go primarily to training and 
response activities. If repairs to projects are necessary due to 
storms, the Corps has previously-appropriated, unobligated Flood 
Control and Coastal Emergencies funds which could be used for these 
purposes.
  On the other hand, the bill has already reduced funding for fossil 
energy by $84 million, which is a 16 percent reduction, and I believe 
we took another substantial reduction earlier this evening. Research 
conducted within this program ensures that we use our Nation's fossil 
fuel resources as well and as cleanly as possible. We simply can't take 
another reduction to this account.
  For this reason and several others, I oppose the amendment, and I 
urge my colleagues to do so as well.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson).
  The amendment was rejected.

[[Page 11232]]




                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Chabot

  Mr. CHABOT. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  The amounts otherwise made available by this Act 
     for ``Appalachian Regional Commission'', ``Delta Regional 
     Authority'', ``Denali Commission'', ``Northern Border 
     Regional Commission'', and ``Southeast Crescent Regional 
     Commission'' are hereby reduced to $0.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CHABOT. I want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Sanford) for his leadership in cosponsoring this particular amendment 
with me.
  We introduced this amendment because, with a nearly $17 trillion 
debt, the Federal Government can no longer continue to subsidize 
wasteful programs and policies. The programs that this amendment would 
eliminate--some of them in my own State--do little to achieve their 
intended purpose of economic development. These are wasteful programs 
that the GAO, the Government Accountability Office, and even the Obama 
administration have found to be duplicative and possessing no track 
record of success.
  In his 2012 budget, President Obama eliminated Federal funding for 
the Denali Commission, for example. His argument, which I agree with, 
was that the Denali projects are not funded through a free market or a 
merit-based system. Additionally, the White House noted that there are 
29 other Federal programs capable of fulfilling this commission's 
mandate. I would submit that this is also the case for a number of 
other commissions--for example, the Appalachian Regional Commission, 
the Delta Regional Authority, the Northern Border Regional Commission, 
and the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission--for which we reduced 
and eliminated the funding.
  Of particular note and concern is a recent report from the Denali 
Commission inspector general, which states that $100 million is missing 
from the Denali Commission bank accounts. In his 2012 semiannual report 
to Congress, the inspector general recounted his attempts to track down 
the lost funds--unsuccessfully, I might add--and recommended that 
Congress not reauthorize the commission in light of this mismanagement.
  Like Citizens Against Government Waste, I seek to end the Federal 
appropriations for this commission as well as for the others that I 
mentioned. By reducing the appropriations to these programs, my 
amendment would save $90 million for American taxpayers.
  GAO analysis found numerous Federal programs that overlap and provide 
similar services. In these reports, GAO found no fewer than 80 Federal 
economic development programs administered by four different agencies. 
Year after year we hear about the inefficiency and waste that is 
occurring within these programs. This inefficiency, duplication and 
overlap have cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars over 
the years.
  These commissions were established for one purpose: economic 
development. Yet the CBO and other organizations have found no factual 
evidence that these commissions have created jobs or have improved 
education or health care. The inability to determine the success of 
these commissions is, in part, due to their overlap with other programs 
and agencies.
  In summary, there is a tremendous amount of duplication and overlap 
in each one of the programs that I mentioned, so they are better dealt 
with at the State and local levels. The officials there are much closer 
to these types of programs than is the Federal Government. The programs 
have no track record of success in doing what they were intended to do, 
which is to create economic development and job growth. It just hasn't 
happened. The GAO report, as I indicated, has stated that the programs 
are duplicative and that there is a tremendous amount of mismanagement.
  Taxpayers are fed up with wasteful spending in Washington. It's time 
we identified wasteful programs. These are truly almost the definition 
of ``wasteful programs,'' and we need to cut them. I would urge my 
colleagues to support this commonsense amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. I rise to oppose this amendment, this attempt by the 
gentleman from Ohio to zero out the regional commissions' budgets. I 
want to focus particularly on the Appalachian Regional Commission, the 
ARC.
  The purpose of the ARC is to close the economic gap between 
Appalachia and the rest of the Nation to bring the region's 420 
counties and 25 million people into the Nation's economic mainstream. 
ARC's goal is to help make this region and its people contributors to 
the national economy and to give them the opportunity to compete in 
today's international economy.
  As a region, Appalachia confronts a combination of challenges that 
few other parts of the country face--its mountainous terrain and 
isolation, a dispersed population, inadequate infrastructure, a lack of 
financial and human resources, and a weak track record in applying for 
and receiving assistance from other Federal programs. Even with ARC's 
funding, in fiscal year 2010, Appalachia received 31 percent less in 
Federal expenditures per capita than the rest of the Nation. That is 
$11,435 in Appalachia versus $16,569 for the Nation as a whole.
  ARC investments do not result in Appalachia's getting more than the 
rest of the country. In addition, as mentioned by the gentleman, ARC's 
programs do not duplicate other Federal programs. Instead, they extend 
the reach of those programs into the most challenging parts of 
Appalachia, enabling many distressed communities to take full advantage 
of other Federal programs when they would not otherwise be able to.
  The ARC funds are often used as a local match that enables 
communities to compete successfully for these other Federal programs. 
In addition, the recent recession has hit Appalachia disproportionately 
hard. Nearly two-thirds of Appalachia's 420 counties have unemployment 
rates greater than the national average. The recession has wiped out 
all of the job gains that have occurred since the year 2000. A 
comparable loss for the Nation wipes out the gains only since 2004.
  Further, ARC has compiled an impressive record of accomplishments in 
creating economic opportunity in Appalachia. From fiscal year 2008 to 
2012, ARC directed 55 to 60 percent of its non-highway funds to 
distressed counties. The number of high poverty counties has been cut 
from 295 in 1960 to 98 distressed and 99 at-risk counties in 2013. The 
regional poverty rate has been cut almost in half, from 31 percent to 
16 percent. Infant mortality has been reduced by two-thirds, and the 
rural health care infrastructure has been strengthened through the 
addition of over 400 rural health care facilities. The percentage of 
adults with a high school diploma has increased by over 70 percent, and 
students in Appalachia now graduate from high school at nearly the same 
rate as that of the rest of the Nation. More than 850,000 Appalachian 
residents now have access to new or improved water and sanitation 
services through ARC projects.
  Madam Chair, the ARC has worked, and it has shown demonstrable 
improvements in the Appalachian region, but despite these 
accomplishments, major challenges still confront the region:
  Nearly a fourth of Appalachia's counties still suffer from persistent 
and severe economic distress; 98 counties are formally classified as 
``distressed,'' and another 99 are at risk of falling into the 
``distressed'' category; Appalachia trails the Nation in per capita 
personal income and average earnings by roughly 20 percent; roughly 25 
percent of Appalachian households are not served by a public water 
system, compared to 15 percent of the rest of the Nation's households; 
and 48 percent of the Appalachian households are not served by a

[[Page 11233]]

public sewage system, compared to the national average of 25 percent. 
The region has been hit disproportionately hard by the loss of jobs in 
the manufacturing industry, as the region has lost one-fourth of its 
manufacturing jobs.
  The ARC has been a model that has worked. For these reasons, we 
oppose the amendment.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUNNELEE. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Mississippi is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. NUNNELEE. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  It is no secret that our Nation's budget is bleeding in red ink. This 
House has approved a budget that will turn that around, and the 
Appropriations Committee has brought forth bills consistent with that 
budget.
  I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey, and the 
ranking member, the gentlewoman from Ohio, for their efforts in meeting 
these budget targets and in eliminating wasteful programs but, at the 
same time, in preserving our priorities.
  This amendment specifically deletes funding for the Appalachian 
Regional Commission, and I would like to address those priorities that 
are addressed by that commission. This is not a wasteful program. It 
has invested in infrastructure. It has changed the lives and the income 
of the men and women of that region, a region that I represent. When 
the Appalachian Regional Commission was formed almost five decades ago, 
it included some of the poorest counties of the poorest States in the 
Nation. Since then, it has achieved measurable results: the number of 
people living in high poverty has been cut in half; infant mortality 
has been cut by two-thirds; and students without a high school 
education have decreased significantly.

                              {time}  2015

  But the men and women of this region aren't sitting idly by, waiting 
for Federal investment to show up to solve our problems. We've used the 
Federal investment through the Appalachian Regional Commission and 
leveraged it with local and other State investments. In the last 4 
years, the Appalachian Regional Commission has invested $360 million in 
that region. At the same time, over $1 billion of other public 
investment has occurred. What has that done? It's attracted over $2.8 
billion in private investment, which has resulted in 122,000 jobs that 
have been created. This commission has made a difference.
  No, it's not wasteful spending. The Appalachian Regional Commission 
is making a difference in the lives of the men and women and families 
in Appalachian. Because of that, I oppose this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I rise this evening in opposition to my Buckeye State 
colleague, Congressman Chabot, and I'm somewhat perplexed by this 
amendment. I don't really understand why he's offering it. I have to 
oppose him. If we look at the Appalachian Regional Commission, it 
actually benefits Ohio. It benefits some of those river counties that 
have historically been left out of the economic mainstream.
  If you come to Ohio, it's rather interesting, because if you look at 
the State there are the big cities of Cleveland, which I'm privileged 
to represent a portion of, Columbus which is the State capitol, and 
Cincinnati, where the gentleman is from. There is a story that goes 
that those are the Big Three, and then there's the other part of the 
State that kind of winds its way from Toledo down toward Marietta. And 
the closer you get to Kentucky and Tennessee, the situation gets a 
little bit rugged.
  In fact, I had occasion to travel there this year for the sad 
occasion of our former colleague Congressman Charlie Wilson's funeral. 
And I remember how hard Charlie worked to try to represent his 
district. In just getting to where we had to go for the ceremonies, I 
was struck again by how that part of Ohio is so inaccessible, just to 
try to move through the territory and get to where we were going. When 
I finally got to the high school where the ceremonies were held, and as 
I walked into the high school, I saw the bricks that Charlie had used 
to help start a project to help promote education in his region because 
there was no institution of higher learning. They had to link up to 
institutions in other parts of the State.
  In just driving around and looking at that part of Ohio, the road 
system doesn't quite connect as it does from the other Big Three Cs. 
The other portion of the State doesn't work that way.
  So the Appalachian Regional Commission meets a very important need, 
even though it's not a part of the State that I live in. There are very 
hardworking people. Economic opportunities, especially in the hillier 
parts, is more difficult to achieve. The Appalachian Regional 
Commission spans several counties and several States, and it tries to 
bring hope and opportunity to these regions.
  A great part about our country is we're supposed to take care of one 
another, and the Appalachian Regional Commission provides a mechanism 
now going over several decades that has truly made a difference. But I 
can guarantee you that for the parts of Ohio that are included in its 
boundaries, the work is not finished. And with what's been happening in 
certain sectors of the economy, in many of these hollows and many of 
these nooks and crannies, life has gotten harder, not easier.
  I want to say that I don't know what motivates the gentleman's 
amendment this evening, but I really do think it would hurt Ohio, and 
it would hurt a lot of these counties, spanning into other States that 
are covered. And the other commissions that exist are not parts of 
America--take the Denali Commission or the Northern Border Regional 
Commission, the Delta Regional Authority--these are not areas that are 
easily lifted in terms of their economic performance, and they need 
help.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the gentleman's amendment. I want to 
thank all those who worked with the Appalachian Regional Commission, 
particularly in my own State. I know it's not always easy, and we want 
to do what we can to support them.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Chair, I want to rise in opposition to this 
amendment, as well.
  As has been noted here, this was created in 1965 as the ARC, and it 
has a real proven track record of success in creating economic 
development in an area of the country that faces unique challenges.
  Again, it creates economic development. I think that needs to be 
stressed. It's not a handout, but it's a way to try to make investment 
into a region of the country that really can use some economic 
development encouragement, and that's exactly what this program does.
  As a result of ARC funding, the regional poverty rate has been cut 
almost in half. Infant mortality rates have been reduced, and job-
creating infrastructure has provided new and improved water and sewer 
services to over 112,000 residents. And that's just in the last 5 
years.
  Despite the tremendous progress that this program has made over the 
years, there's challenges that still exist. This region has lost 
roughly one-fourth of its manufacturing jobs and nearly one-fourth of 
Appalachia's counties still suffer from severe and persistent economic 
distress.
  Now is not the time to zero-out this effective program, especially 
when you're focusing on economic development. Now, more than ever, we 
must empower local communities and regional planning commissions to 
utilize this much needed Federal assistance and provide the basic 
building blocks for regional economic development.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page 11234]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CHABOT. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio will be 
postponed.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Butterfield

  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___.  It is the sense of Congress that the Army Corps 
     of Engineers should take into consideration and prioritize 
     emergency operations, repairs, mitigation activities, and 
     other activities in response to or in anticipation of any 
     flood, hurricane, or other natural disaster when evaluating 
     construction projects.

  Mr. BUTTERFIELD (during the reading). Madam Chair, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Madam Chair, I am very disappointed, to say the 
least, that significant cuts are being proposed to reduce funding for 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. But with that in mind, I've come to 
the floor this evening with an idea that I think mitigates the effects 
of those cuts.
  I will begin by saying that my amendment has no cost associated with 
it. It simply expresses the sense of Congress that the Army Corps of 
Engineers should consider and prioritize projects that mitigate the 
danger of natural disasters. Eastern North Carolina is especially 
vulnerable to extreme weather events, and other States have the same 
vulnerability.
  The Corps works to improve the safety of communities near the Neuse 
River in Goldsboro, North Carolina, and in Princeville, where Hurricane 
Floyd all but destroyed the town because of the rapidly rising and 
poorly contained Tar River.
  My amendment would give added confidence to my constituents in North 
Carolina and to many of your constituents, as well, that the Federal 
Government is doing everything possible to protect and reinforce 
communities and neighborhood from natural disasters.
  For several years, the Nation has witnessed the widespread 
devastation caused by these disasters. Hurricane Sandy and Hurricane 
Irene are just two examples. Communities affected by natural disasters 
like those in my district face a long recovery filled with hardship and 
painful dilemmas. The underlying bill we are discussing today cuts $104 
million in civil projects of the Corps, and it rescinds $200 million in 
previously appropriated funding.
  At the same time, the Corps has a $60 million backlog of projects, 
and some of my colleagues have referenced that tonight. Many of these 
are in important places like my district, and many of yours, as well, 
that experience frequent storms. Due to insufficient funding and a 
prohibition on new construction, no new projects have been initiated by 
the Corps since the year 2010.
  The Corps has many important responsibilities, but none more so than 
its effort to mitigate flood and storm dangers. The Corps provides 
essential mitigation assistance such as repairing damaged levees and 
providing emergency water supplies to communities in need. It also 
works to engineer infrastructure that will prevent some of the effects 
of natural disaster.
  The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has predicted an 
especially active hurricane season, with up to 11 hurricanes and up to 
16 major hurricanes in the 6-month hurricane season. The number of 
predicted storms is significantly greater than the seasonal average of 
six hurricanes and three major hurricanes. NOAA has also indicated that 
hurricanes threaten inland areas through rain and strong winds and 
flooding, as we saw in many communities.
  Never has funding and support for the Corps been more critical to my 
constituents and the many areas throughout the country. So as we 
consider a bill that plans to reduce funding for the Corps, we must 
keep in mind the communities who may suffer, and many who have spoken 
tonight come from those districts. They suffer the most from this type 
of activity.
  I remind my colleagues that this amendment costs no money whatsoever. 
A ``no'' vote on the amendment does carry the cost of heavy inaction.
  I ask the Chair to overrule the point of order.
  The chairman of the subcommittee mentioned earlier that he supports 
the Corps and funding for the Corps. This is simply an effort to try to 
instruct the Corps to prioritize the projects as they make these 
difficult decisions.
  My colleagues, I thank you for listening, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I insist on my point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey will state his point 
of order.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of 
Rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part an amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. The 
amendment proposes to state a legislative position.
  I ask for a ruling of the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina proposes 
to state a legislative position of the House.
  As such, the amendment constitutes legislation in violation of clause 
2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is 
not in order.


         Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania

  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, my friend, Mr. Duffy from 
Wisconsin, and I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to develop or submit a proposal to expand the 
     authorized uses of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund 
     described in section 9505(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, the reason I'm here tonight 
is to talk about the efforts that are being used to divert Harbor 
Maintenance Trust Fund monies to purposes other than what Congress 
intended, and that is dredging and maintenance of our harbors.
  I'm talking about fairness, and I'm talking about commerce. We've all 
known for years that we have a problem when funds are collected for an 
intended purpose, that sometimes they don't get used that way. So we 
have money in, but money does not come out for its intended use.
  There are a number of reasons for this happening. But until we get 
more funds for their intended purpose, Mr. Duffy and I oppose expanding 
the authorities for the use of this funding.

                              {time}  2030

  This is a matter of fairness.
  The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund has carried a surplus since 1997. 
At the end of fiscal year 2012, the trust fund had an estimated $7 
billion surplus that was not spent on harbor maintenance. Yet our 
harbors are under-maintained.
  The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has estimated that full channel 
dimensions at the Nation's busiest 59 ports

[[Page 11235]]

are available less than 35 percent of the time. That's unacceptable. 
Just from an economic standpoint, it should be unacceptable to us.
  Ships, especially those in my district and throughout the Great 
Lakes, are light-loading. When that happens, American productivity is 
lost. Light-loading--we can't even load the ship to their capacity 
because we haven't maintained our harbors. We haven't dredged our 
harbors. This is an affront to commerce. It goes back to the very 
beginning of what the Founding Fathers thought about commerce as so 
important, getting products from point A to point B.
  We must ensure that the moneys intended for dredging are not siphoned 
off for other reasons. Our amendment will prohibit moneys from being 
used by the administration to expand the authorized uses of the Harbor 
Maintenance Trust Fund moneys.
  I know this is something that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Frelinghuysen) has supported in the past, and I appreciate his 
consideration.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NOLAN. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. NOLAN. I rise in support of the Kelly-Duffy amendment, which 
would prohibit expanded uses of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund at 
the current appropriations level.
  Let me be clear, the needs of the Nation's ports and harbors are 
great, and they are largely unmet today. The U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers has made a valiant effort to maintain these facilities, which 
are essential for American manufacturers and the business community, to 
access markets around the world. We're talking about jobs. We're 
talking about business income here in every State, in every 
congressional district in this country.
  Beginning in 1997, however, as Mr. Kelly just pointed out, both 
Congress and the administration since that time have fallen short of 
allocating the entire balance of the harbor trust fund moneys to a 
current rate of less than 50 percent of the total revenues received. 
Tragically, as a result, we've fallen seriously behind in our essential 
harbor maintenance. If we were to restore full funding today, the Army 
Corps estimates it would take 5 years to catch up on the backlog in our 
Nation's busiest ports and another 5 years to catch up on the Nation's 
smaller ports, which are nevertheless essential to local and regional 
economies.
  Channel dredging is the most critical factor in maintaining our 
harbors. To be sure, there are other needs. In 2011, the Army Corps 
suggested that this fund could be used to increase harbor security. 
Certainly access roads and other harbor facilities need constant 
maintenance. But if we expand the use of these funds without expanding 
the total funds appropriated, we will simply add to our current 
backlog, choke off future commerce, and cost the American economy the 
jobs that we desperately need.
  The port of Duluth in my district is already restricting outbound 
shipments to 80 percent of the capacity because of this backlog in 
maintaining proper channel depth. How can we justify forcing our 
merchant fleet to operate at less than full efficiency?
  I urge my Democratic colleagues to support this amendment and help us 
prevent a bad situation from getting worse.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I am happy to yield to Congressman Kelly 
offering the amendment or Congressman Nolan, who spoke on the 
amendment, and to say that this amendment gives us an opportunity to 
talk about the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and the importance of all 
of our harbors, including those in the Great Lakes.
  I spoke earlier today, and I said I don't know how long it's going to 
take to narrow the channel any more. Some of the ports I represent, 
what has been happening is that with less money, the width has been 
narrowing. I said so maybe our ships will actually look like this some 
day, rather than having a bow that looks like this. There just simply 
aren't enough funds to dredge all of the ports that are necessary. And, 
in fact, there have been some harbors which have actually shut down.
  So this gives us an opportunity to talk about the necessity of a 
review of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and its future use and what 
we might do in order to get a better allocation to our accounts so that 
we can take care of all of these ports that are being pressed around 
the country.
  If the gentlemen have anything additional that they would like to put 
on the record at this point regarding the ports in the Great Lakes or 
elsewhere, I would be more than pleased to yield to them.
  Mr. NOLAN. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. NOLAN. Madam Chair, I thank Representative Kaptur for yielding, 
and I would just add that it's costing business and commerce throughout 
the country and the Great Lakes billions of dollars. This is critical, 
essential infrastructure; and we look forward to working with you to 
find a way to release that trust fund for what it was intended, which 
is the dredging of our harbors. It is so critical to our commerce, our 
businesses, our jobs, and our economies.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Reclaiming my time, I hope the administration is hearing 
this and the Corps is hearing this and they work with us on a better 
allocation and not invading the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for other 
purposes.
  I would hate to deny the administration the right to think about this 
and to make recommendations to us. I don't think that it is the intent 
of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly) to prevent any oversight 
or activities by the administration to better manage the Harbor 
Maintenance Trust Fund. I don't think that is his intent. I think his 
intent is to ensure that these dollars are spent for harbor 
maintenance.
  But if, in fact, the administration has a good idea they want to 
throw in to help us with this, you wouldn't deny them the right to do 
that; am I correct? We need their cooperation in order to make this 
work.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. NOLAN. Madam Chair, they are already neglecting the needs for 
dredging in our harbors. To divert funds from existing appropriations 
that are available would only make the situation worse, which is why I 
rise in support of the gentleman's amendment.
  I know Mr. Duffy wishes to speak to the amendment as well.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Congressman Kelly, your intention is not to preclude the 
administration from working with us on the Harbor Maintenance Trust 
Fund if they have a creative idea that would help us?
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. I think the whole purpose of this--and Mr. 
Duffy will have a chance to speak next--this money is collected for a 
specific reason. I had a conversation with Secretary LaHood talking 
about why can't we use the money that's been collected and set aside to 
be used. This is about commerce. This is about fairness. This is about 
growing our economy and being able to have access to the entire world. 
We're letting these harbors go unmaintained. We're not dredging them, 
and we're causing a huge problem in commerce. That's the problem. We 
can't get from point A to point B. We're lowering the efficiency of our 
businesses and their ability to get products out there. The whole 
purpose of this is to use the money that's collected for the intention 
for which it was collected. It's money that's going in, but not being 
used the right way, and I don't want to see it get diverted any other 
way, as we've seen happen already. We're already missing the boat, no 
pun intended. We're closing down these harbors, and we're not doing the 
right things by them.

[[Page 11236]]

  I know my friend from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy) wants to talk.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUFFY. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DUFFY. Madam Chair, I will try to address some of the concerns of 
the gentlelady from Ohio. I think everyone who supports this amendment 
is willing to work with the administration if the administration wants 
to work with us to start to dredge our ports, to make sure that we can 
actually have more flow of commerce through the American ports that 
haven't been serviced well.
  If the administration wants to tap into the Harbor Maintenance Trust 
Fund and use those resources for other purposes, I think you would see 
a strong objection from those who support this amendment because those 
of us who especially live in the Great Lakes--Mr. Nolan and I, the 
gentleman from Minnesota and I, have the great honor of sharing the 
Duluth-Superior port. We understand how important dredging is to making 
sure that port functions.
  When we don't have enough resources going in to service our port, it 
gives us great pause because these are jobs in our community. It is 
economic growth in our community, and if we don't have that, we're 
concerned. So if the administration is willing to work with us, we are 
willing to work with the administration, no doubt.
  But, again, if they want to take those resources and use them for 
another purpose, we would have great pause and pushback because what 
you've seen with the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is that it is funded 
by the shippers. They pay taxes, they pay fees in the anticipation that 
those dollars, those revenues, are going to be used to service our 
ports. The problem is it hasn't been used to service our ports. So 
they're paying money into a fund that over the last 15 years has run a 
surplus, and now there's $7 billion in the fund. And they sit back and 
they scratch their heads and they wonder why isn't this money being 
used for its intended purpose, which is to make sure American ports 
work. We've paid for it. We've agreed to pay the taxes; now do, 
government, what you've promised us to do, use it to make sure that we 
can actually have commerce in our industry.
  I think it's important, the gentleman from Pennsylvania also talked 
about the Corps of Engineers doing studies and talking about our 
shippers having to light-load, talking about the Great Lakes ports, 
talking about Duluth-Superior, the twin ports, where they're unable to 
load at full capacity because we haven't effectively dredged that port. 
And that is loss of revenue for our shippers. Not only that, it's 
driving up the cost of the goods that we're shipping on the Great 
Lakes, which means the end consumer is paying more for those goods. 
This doesn't make a lot of economic sense, especially when we have $7 
billion of surplus in that fund.
  This is one of those issues where I think government can do a better 
job serving the people. Putting money into a fund, paying taxes to 
specifically go into a fund for a specific purpose and then have that 
fund raided and robbed and used for a different purpose is 
unconscionable, and it is unacceptable; and that is not the agreement 
that Americans here in the shipping industry had with their government. 
It's unfair, at best.
  To make one last point, this is a jobs amendment. This amendment will 
again make sure that we can have a growing, effective, efficient 
economy in shipping in ports across the country; but it also makes sure 
that we have lower-cost goods because we are effectively using our 
ports and our shippers across the country.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DUFFY. I yield to the gentlelady from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I'm glad we've had 
this discussion tonight. Others have heard it. I think it will help 
encourage administration cooperation, being the Representative who has 
the ports of Lake Erie in her district--Cleveland, Lorain, Sandusky, 
Toledo, and many points in between--I fully understand the challenge 
here.
  One of our budgetary challenges is we have to have a budget that 
allocates these dollars, and right now that hasn't come from your side 
of the aisle. So in order to use these dollars, it has to be 
incorporated in the budget resolution that comes to us. Our mark was 
too low in our bill in order to be able to move those dollars. So let's 
work on that with the Budget Committee, as well, so we get that 
allocation and it comes to our subcommittee. That's something that we 
can all work on on both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. DUFFY. Reclaiming my time, point well made by the gentlelady from 
Ohio. Just to make sure we're clear, this amendment is one that 
prohibits additional or expansion of the definition of use for the 
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, so we can't use it for purposes other 
than for the ports, which was the original intent.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. HAHN. Madam Chair, I rise to express my concern about the 
amendment accepted into the Energy & Water Appropriations bill last 
night that prevents the Army Corps of Engineers from using any of the 
funds appropriated in that act for even suggesting expanded uses of the 
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
  I represent the Port of Los Angeles, a Port which, combined with the 
adjacent Port of Long Beach, constitutes the busiest port complex in 
the United States. Forty percent of the cargo that comes into this 
country flows through the Ports of LA and Long Beach.
  The Ports of LA and Long Beach contribute more to the Harbor 
Maintenance Trust Fund than any other port--over $263 million last 
year. That's money that comes out of the pockets of American 
businesses, an added cost borne by American consumers who rely on the 
Ports of LA and Long Beach being efficient and strong.
  But because this port complex--arguably the most important port in 
the Nation--is blessed by geology, we have little need for dredging to 
remain deep and wide. And so my port sees less than a penny return for 
every dollar it contributes to the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. And 
that means that all those American businesses and consumers who are 
forking over $263 million every year are seeing practically no benefit.
  The port they rely on is cut out of the narrow uses set for the HMTF. 
I don't think that's fair, and I don't think that's smart. Why have we 
structured the use of the HMTF in such a way that 40 percent of the 
Nation's imports are not seeing any benefit?
  Every port, big and small, deserves to be completely and promptly 
dredged. That's why achieving full utilization of the Harbor 
Maintenance Trust Fund is so critical. But we also need to address the 
donor equity issue faced by deep draft commercial ports like mine, who 
handle so much cargo and see so little investment in return. And so 
yes, I think we need to examine some expanded uses--including 
maintenance berth dredging and some landside uses closely tied to the 
port--so that the HMTF does in fact contribute to the strength of all 
ports in this great country.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  2045

  Mr. RIGELL. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. RIGELL. I rise to enter in a colloquy with the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey, the chairman of the Energy and Water 
Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Frelinghuysen.
  Virginia is proud to be home of one of the Department's flagship 
national labs in nuclear physics, the Thomas Jefferson National 
Accelerator Facility, or JLab, located in Newport News, and its primary 
scientific facility there known as the Continuous Electron Beam 
Accelerator Facility.
  In fact, the nuclear physics community so values the work at the JLab 
that they recommended a major upgrade to its accelerator, what's 
referred to as the 12 GeV project, as its number one priority in their 
2007 long-

[[Page 11237]]

range plan for nuclear physics. That upgrade has received over 70 
percent of its construction funding through the tireless efforts of the 
subcommittee, and work is going to begin there on its commissioning in 
fiscal year 2014, that is, provided that sufficient funding is included 
in this appropriations measure.
  I'm really grateful that the construction funding that is provided in 
the bill is at the level requested by the administration. However, I am 
concerned that the proposed reductions for nuclear physics below the 
budget request could force unilateral cuts in medium energy nuclear 
physics operations, and that these reductions could delay the start of 
the commissioning of the 12 GeV project, which is scheduled to start in 
the first quarter of fiscal year 2014.
  Therefore, I'm asking the chairman if he would be willing to work 
with me and my colleagues in Virginia and others who support the 
priorities of the nuclear physics community to work towards completing 
this important construction project and to begin operations in a timely 
fashion.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RIGELL. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank my colleague for his interest and strong 
advocacy on behalf of the Jefferson Lab and for the nuclear physics 
program. Our allocation has made for some tough choices, and we worked 
hard to fund the Office of Science at $32 million above current levels, 
post-sequester. This level of funding is sufficient to support a $7.5 
million increase for the Medium Energy Nuclear Physics program, which 
goes to the Jefferson Lab.
  I want to thank my colleague for his advocacy and look forward to 
working with him to support this vital program through the 
appropriations process.
  I also assure my colleague that the bill keeps CEBAF on track to 
begin operations in fiscal year 2014.
  Mr. RIGELL. I thank the gentleman for yielding initially. I thank him 
for his leadership.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. LaMalfa

  Mr. LaMALFA. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to regulate activities identified in subparagraphs 
     (A) and (C) of section 404(f)(1) of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344(f)(1)(A), (C)).

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Chairman, I'm pleased to be able to present this 
amendment here. I thank the chairman of the committee for allowing 
this.
  We have a situation here where section 404(f)(1) of the Clean Water 
Act exempts certain activities from the permitting requirements under 
section 404, including normal farming, forestry, and ranching 
activities, and construction and maintenance of farm and forest roads, 
irrigation ditches, and farm ponds.
  In 1977, Congress made a deliberate policy choice to amend the Clean 
Water Act to provide carefully tailored exemptions for these ordinary 
activities of farmers, ranchers, and foresters from the costly and 
burdensome requirements to obtain Clean Water Act permits.
  Despite this clear expression of congressional intent, however, the 
Corps of Engineers and the EPA in recent years have been trying to 
circumvent the 404(f)(1) permitting exemptions by attempting to 
interpret a limited ``recapture'' provision in section 404(f)(2) in 
such an expansive way as to virtually swallow up the exemptions in 
404(f)(1).
  As a result, we have a situation where Congress clearly provided a 
regulatory exemption from permitting in one paragraph of the Clean 
Water Act, only to have the Corps and EPA now take it away through a 
creative interpretation of the next paragraph.
  The Corps and EPA cannot take away administratively what Congress 
gave legislatively. These administrative efforts to undermine 
congressional intent have resulted in excessive and overzealous efforts 
to expand regulatory powers into farming and ranching activities 
exempted from regulation.
  In one instance, a family farm attempted to convert pastureland 
irrigated by ditch to a piped irrigation system to improve their water 
efficiency--a laudable goal from any perspective. This is an activity 
clearly exempted from regulation by section 404(f)(1), yet the Corps' 
argument that potential runoff from this work, which would run into a 
man-made drainage ditch and eventually into a terminal man-made pond 
with no outlet, would impact somehow the navigable waterway, the 
Sacramento River, which is over 6 miles away, which really bears no 
relation to reality, this regulation. This claim by the Corps turned a 
1-day, $2,500 project into, now, a multiyear legal battle resulting in 
over $100,000 in legal costs to the family farm, all with no 
improvement or protection of the environment.
  This amendment is intended to make it clear that the Corps is not to 
use any funds to regulate activities that are already excluded from 
regulation under section 404(f)(1)(A) and (C) of the Clean Water Act, 
and that the ``recapture'' provision in section 404(f)(2) is not to be 
used to undermine those section 404(f)(1) permitting exemptions. The 
amendment allows the permitting exemptions to stand on their own 
merits, without the Corps and EPA negating their use through clever 
legal interpretations.
  In no way does this amendment attack or limit regulation of wetlands 
or our Nation's waterways. As a rancher myself, with wetlands, ducks, 
other wildlife on my land, I know full well the importance and value of 
reasonable protections for our natural resources.
  Today, farms in California and elsewhere are being targeted for 
simply changing crops or irrigation methods. They are doing their best 
to follow every law, the spirit of the law, but are being targeted for 
something Congress explicitly exempted.
  This amendment simply limits funds to ensure that agencies of 
government only spend money to follow the laws as Congress wrote them. 
I urge all Members to please support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I have no objection to the gentleman's amendment. 
Our colleague from California describes yet another troubling example 
of what seems to be Federal overreach, regulatory overreach. I support 
his amendment, which I think addresses the situation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment. 
If the proposed amendment would take effect, the Corps would be 
prohibited from requiring a permit for discharges into waters of the 
United States from certain agricultural activities.
  The Clean Water Act already exempts certain agricultural activities 
from regulation unless those activities change the flow of navigable 
waters, then those agricultural activities, such as construction of 
stock ponds or irrigation ditches, construction of forest roads and 
reconstruction of recently damaged parts of levees, dikes, and dams, 
must be regulated.
  The Clean Water Act already exempts agriculture business from many of 
the regulations imposed on others. This amendment would take away the 
commonsense safeguards built into the Clean Water Act to prevent the 
negative impact of some agricultural activities, and we have all been 
witness to some of those.
  So I believe the Clean Water Act strikes the right balance in giving 
relief to agricultural businesses already

[[Page 11238]]

and, therefore, urge defeat of the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. _. None of the funds made available in this act to the 
     United States Army Corps of Engineers may be used for 
     sediment or soil dumping into the Missouri River.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chair, we have a situation that exists in 
Iowa, Nebraska, and Missouri that I know of along the Missouri River, 
which I've represented the entire stretch along Iowa. It's an attempt 
to save the endangered species known as the pallid sturgeon, and I 
brought a little sample of him here. He's the only one in congressional 
captivity. This came from the hatchery at U.S. Fish and Wildlife, by 
the way.
  But what they're doing is an attempt to create shallow water habitats 
so this pallid sturgeon can reproduce. They're opening up the old 
oxbows, and that's all right. But what they're doing is dredging 
millions of cubic yards of dredge spoil out of those old channels into 
the river channel itself. And we know that dredge spoil is listed under 
the Clean Water Act as a toxic pollutant.
  They wouldn't let farmers do it. They wouldn't let contractors do it. 
The Corps of Engineers doesn't need to. They have better alternatives 
that are consistent with the Clean Water Act.
  So my amendment simply says none of the funds can be used to dredge 
this into the river, and they would need to follow their own rules like 
everybody else does.
  I urge the adoption of this amendment, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chairman, I don't have any objection to the 
amendment, although I do have a few concerns, which I'd like to cover.
  First of all, I want to thank my colleague for bringing these issues 
to our attention. If, in fact, the Corps' actions are detrimental to 
flood control efforts in his region, those types of actions need to be 
stopped, and I would be happy to work with him to do that.
  I do believe, of course, that some of these issues would be better 
dealt with by the authorizing committees that have jurisdiction over 
the Corps and the Endangered Species Act. So I think there are some 
concerns that we have that are legitimate here. We're going to do some 
more investigation and work with the gentleman to see if we can address 
his concerns.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, the King amendment would provide no funds to 
be used for shallow water habitat construction if that involves 
sediment or soil dumping into the Missouri River.
  In order to meet the obligations established within the 2003 amended 
biological opinion, the construction of shallow water habitat is an 
integral part of compliance. There are two ways to build shallow water 
habitats: either through flow actions or through mechanical actions.
  The Corps has been implementing habitat construction to avoid 
manipulating flows mainly because of concerns expressed by the State of 
Missouri. This amendment would prevent the construction of shallow 
water habitat, leaving the pallid sturgeon fish unprotected.
  I understand that farmers in Iowa have concerns that the Army Corps 
is not creating these habitats in an ecological manner, but the Army 
Corps studies show there will only be minimal increases in nutrients 
carried by the river during project construction.
  If the Corps cannot put sediment into the Missouri River, it will 
have to dispose of the sediment in upland areas. There will be 
increased cost for each construction project. Disposal in upland areas 
would increase costs by requiring material to be placed in trucks and 
hauled offsite to upland disposal areas, or adjacent to the habitat 
projects. Project cost would be increased by 300 percent to 500 
percent, depending on site specifics.
  So disposing of sediment in upland areas will also result in 
increased negative environmental impacts. Disposal of material in 
upland areas will require disturbances of existing mitigation sites and 
increases the risk of damage to adjacent wetlands. It may also require 
additional land acquisition for disposal areas.
  For all these reasons, we have to oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LaMALFA. I yield to my colleague from Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.
  And I regret I didn't have that opportunity to sit down and talk to 
the gentlelady from Ohio regarding this dredging that's taking place in 
the Missouri River bottom in my district, in my neighborhood where I 
spent my lifetime working on that river bottom and doing work like 
dredge work and dredge site work and dredge disposal site work.
  We've done a number of projects with the earthmoving side of this 
thing, working in conjunction with dredge contractors. I've been up and 
down every mile of this river for decades now. I've watched what 
they're doing. They would never let a private interest do what they are 
doing. They wouldn't let a public interest do what they are doing. Only 
the Corps of Engineers can do what they're doing.
  And I've not reviewed these numbers closely, but I did hear that it 
could be a 300 percent increase in the cost. I'd like to look at it 
more closely. I'm pretty confident King Construction can bid that 
substantially cheaper. However, we're not in the business of advocating 
what we do here in this Congress. The Corps of Engineers has often put 
out numbers that have been much higher than the actual cost necessary.
  And it's pretty simple to me that if you could see what I saw last 
week, a 20-inch pipe pumping out water and dredge spoil that's churned 
up by the beater effect of the dredge, pumping that out into the middle 
of the river where the sediment, the heavy stuff drops out right away; 
it starts to fill the channel. The lighter stuff goes down the river 
and gets settled out.

                              {time}  2100

  And then the river has to be dredged again by putting that sediment 
into the river. It ends up having to be treated. There's plenty of 
places for them to do this. They are contradicting their own policy. 
And so I urge the adoption of this amendment, and let's hold the Corps 
of Engineers accountable the same way they hold everyone else 
accountable.
  Mr. LaMALFA. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Flores

  Mr. FLORES. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement, administer, or enforce the National 
     Ocean Policy developed under Executive Order No. 13547 of 
     July 19, 2010 (75 Fed. Reg. 43023, relating to the 
     stewardship of oceans, coasts, and the Great Lakes).

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.

[[Page 11239]]


  Mr. FLORES. Madam Chairman, last year, the House adopted my 
bipartisan amendment that would prevent agencies under the FY 2013 CJS 
appropriations bill from imposing ocean zoning related to the Obama 
administration's National Ocean Policy under Executive Order 13547. 
Executive Order 13547 was signed in 2010 and requires that various 
bureaucracies essentially zone the ocean and the sources thereof. This 
essentially means that a drop of rain that falls on your house could be 
subject to this overreaching policy because that precipitation will 
ultimately wind up in the ocean.
  The Department of Energy is a part of the National Ocean Council 
established under this executive order that has been tasked to zone the 
oceans. Concerns have been raised by many groups that the National 
Ocean Policy will restrict ocean and inland activities. It is also 
worrisome that the administration has not made any requests for funds 
for this effort, nor has Congress ever appropriated money for this 
purpose. We have had hearings on this in the Natural Resources 
Committee, and no agency has told us from what source they're getting 
the funding for this initiative. So where is the money coming from? Are 
they raiding existing accounts and diverting already scarce dollars 
from existing statutory responsibilities?
  On this chart you can see the executive order creates a huge new 
bureaucracy at a time when we're trying to make the government smaller, 
more efficient, more accountable, and less intrusive. The next chart 
lists the 63 agencies that are involved in this effort to try to zone 
the oceans. This looks like much more than a planning exercise at this 
point.
  Let me say you're going to hear from the other side from time to time 
something that says that planning is good. Yes, planning may be good. 
Planning with the intent to in effect backdoor nonstatutory rulemaking 
is not good.
  And here's what the executive order states on its face. It says:

       All executive departments, agencies, and offices that are 
     members of the council and any other executive department, 
     agency, or office whose actions affect the ocean, our coasts, 
     and the Great Lakes shall, to the full extent consistent with 
     applicable law, comply with Council-certified coastal and 
     marine spatial plans.

  That sounds like rulemaking, to me, that has not been authorized by 
statute.
  It's important to note that ocean zoning was debated during the 
108th, the 109th, the 110th, and the 111th Congresses, and each of 
those Congresses determined that this action was not necessary. This 
clearly indicates that Congress explicitly does not intend for the 
oceans to be zoned in the manner that the President is attempting to 
do. Thus, Executive Order 13547 has no specific statutory authority, 
and there have been no appropriations by Congress to pay for the cost 
of this new bureaucracy.
  My similar amendment earlier this year passed by a bipartisan vote of 
233-190 to the offshore energy packaged we considered last month. This 
amendment was also adopted on a bipartisan basis as a part of the FY 
2013 CJS appropriations bill.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this commonsense 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I rise to oppose the amendment and to stress 
the importance of ocean policy. We already see acidification, low 
dissolved oxygen, harmful algae blooms, and dead zones in the Gulf, the 
Chesapeake Bay, Puget Sound, and throughout our Nation's coastal 
waterways.
  The National Ocean Policy would help us better address the cumulative 
threats to our aquatic ecosystems from overfishing, coastal 
development, storm water runoff, carbon emissions, and pollutants in 
our waterways. The implementation of the National Ocean Policy will 
help to protect, maintain, and restore our ocean and coastal 
ecosystems, systems which provide important jobs, food, recreation, and 
which serve as the foundation for a substantial part of our Nation's 
economy. Only healthy, functioning, and resilient marine and freshwater 
ecosystems can support the fisheries we all depend upon so heavily.
  There are some reports that show that over half of the fish in the 
oceans have been fished out. If you go to any supermarket, you're going 
to find on the shelves--the fish that are there--strange names you've 
never even heard of before because so many of the varieties that were 
plentiful are simply fished out forever.
  The core approach of the National Ocean Policy is to improve 
stewardship of our ocean's coasts, islands, and Great Lakes by 
directing government agencies with differing mandates to coordinate and 
work better together. The National Ocean Policy creates no new 
authorities. It's about increased coordination among existing agencies, 
the sort of effort that should be taking place on a Federal level in 
order to reduce inefficiency, waste, and redundancy between agencies.
  This is an issue of bringing people together so that all of the 
ocean's users, including recreational and commercial fishermen, 
boaters, industries, scientists, and the public can better plan for, 
manage, harmonize, and sustain uses of oceans and coastal resources.
  When you think about it, we now have 310 million people in our 
country. We look at the global populations in the billions. With the 
rate of population increase rising, more and more fishing going on--and 
how many of us come from regions where we see that fisheries have shut 
down? And that in fact what used to exist in Massachusetts, exists no 
more. That there are places on the West Coast where the fisheries that 
had been there are shut down. That's because there's so much draw on 
that life source in the ocean that we have to pay attention as a world 
how we are going to feed the generations of the future. This is not a 
casual engagement. This is downright serious business.
  I would say that the gentleman's amendment is not forward-looking. I 
don't know what he has in mind here. But the better we understand what 
is going on and what Congressman Claude Pepper used to call Planet 
Ocean, where 70 percent of our Earth is actually water, much of it 
impinged now by pollutants and so forth. We have a responsibility to 
the globe. This is not simple.
  Prior generations haven't had to think this way, but we have to think 
this way because there are many more draws on these resources. Look at 
the problems we've had with some countries going out and doing the 
fishing and just taking fish to one country and not allowing other 
fishermen to have equal access, even in the Great Lakes that I 
represent. It's amazing. Every single year, the number of fish you're 
allowed to catch goes down, because we've both got more fisherman, 
because the population is increasing, but there are fewer fish to draw 
from those lakes. And there are substantial threats in the form of 
invasive species.
  So the gentleman and I are on different sides of this. I think it's 
important to understand the oceans and to coordinate among our agencies 
to put the best intelligence forward because the globe is changing and 
we have to be smart enough to deal with those ecosystem changes.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Flores

  Mr. FLORES. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement, administer, or enforce section 526 of 
     the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 
     110-140; 42 U.S.C. 17142).

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FLORES. Madam Chair, I rise to offer an amendment which addresses 
another misguided and restrictive Federal regulation.

[[Page 11240]]

  Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act prohibits 
Federal agencies from entering into contracts for the procurement of 
fuels unless their lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions are less than or 
equal to emissions from an equivalent conventional fuel produced from 
conventional petroleum sources. My simple amendment would stop the 
government from enforcing this ban on all Federal agencies funded by 
the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill.
  The initial purpose of section 526 was to stifle the Defense 
Department's plans to buy and develop coal-based or coal-to-liquids jet 
fuel. This restriction was based on the opinion of some 
environmentalists that coal-based jet fuel might produce more 
greenhouse gas emissions than traditional petroleum. However, one of 
the unintended consequences of section 526 is that it essentially 
forces the American military to acquire fuel refined from unstable 
Middle East crude resources. Furthermore, section 526's ban on fuel 
choice now affects all Federal agencies, not just the Defense 
Department.
  This is why I'm offering this amendment again today to the Energy and 
Water Appropriations bill. The American military and our Federal 
agencies should not be burdened with wasting their time studying fuel 
restrictions when there's a simple fix. That fix is to not restrict 
Federal Government fuel choices based on unsound policies and misguided 
regulations like those in section 526.
  Section 526 also essentially makes our Nation more dependent on 
Middle East oil. Stopping the impact of section 526 will help us to 
promote American energy, grow the American economy, create American 
jobs, and become more energy secure.
  Madam Chair, it is also important to know what this amendment does 
not prevent and does not restrict. And it doesn't restrict or prevent 
the ability of the Federal Government from purchasing any alternative 
fuels, including biodiesel, ethanol, or other fuels from renewable 
resources. It places no restrictions whatsoever on those types of 
procurements.
  I offered this amendment to the Homeland Security appropriations 
bills and several appropriations bills during the 112th Congress, and 
they all passed on the floor of the House with strong bipartisan 
support. My friend, Mr. Conaway, also added similar language to the 
latest defense authorization bill to exempt the Defense Department from 
this burdensome regulation.
  I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this commonsense 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Bridenstine

  Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Corps of Engineers to set water storage prices 
     for municipal use for a nonhydropower lake constructed by the 
     Corps above the price that was set at the time of the 
     completion of that lake.

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BRIDENSTINE. I rise today to offer an amendment that will provide 
temporary relief and assurance for communities who otherwise will soon 
be hit by some of the sharpest increases in water storage prices ever 
seen. My amendment is simple. It prohibits the Army Corps of Engineers 
from using any official resources or funds to set new, increased water 
storage prices for municipal use on any non-hydropower lake that was 
built by the Corps.

                              {time}  2115

  The Corps would only be permitted to set the same rates on local 
communities that were in place when the lake was completed, a dollar 
figure that is well documented and not subject to any sort of 
interpretation by the Corps.
  A source of funding for the operation lakes owned by the Corps of 
Engineers is derived from water storage contracts with municipalities. 
The formula for pricing of water storage contracts on Corps lakes is 
defined legislatively as ``current cost.'' This fixed formula creates a 
prohibitive financial burden on the citizens of municipalities desiring 
to contract with the Corps and, as a result, the Corps does not receive 
any income for the operation and maintenance of the lake.
  In drought-stricken areas like Bartlesville, Oklahoma, the Corps' 
current flawed methodology threatens to raise water storage prices on 
local residents from around 6 cents to nearly a dollar for the same 
1,000 gallons of water. It also raises the total fiscal impact of water 
storage prices on Bartlesville from around $1.6 million a year to more 
than $24 million a year.
  Earlier this year, the Senate adopted by unanimous consent an 
amendment by Senator Inhofe to their WRDA bill that requires the GAO to 
complete a study on the Corps' outdated and flawed methodology when it 
comes to these water storage prices. As the WRDA bill develops in the 
House and hopefully moves towards conference and enactment, I am 
looking forward to working with my colleagues on a long-term 
legislative solution to replace this outdated formula with one that is 
fair, reasonable, and affordable to all parties.
  By adopting this amendment today, we can provide 1 more year of 
certainty and assurance for communities like Bartlesville by ensuring 
that they do not see outrageous increases in their water storage prices 
that they quite simply cannot afford.
  The American taxpayer spends billions of dollars every year to fund 
the operations of the Army Corps of Engineers; but by adopting this 
amendment, we can ensure that none of those funds are used to enforce a 
formula that is outdated, unfair, and unjust as we move through the 
WRDA bill and other avenues towards a long-term solution.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I insist on my point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey may state his point 
of order.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, the amendment proposes a net increase 
in budget authority in the bill. The amendment is not in order under 
section 3(d)(3) of House Resolution 5, 113th Congress, which states:

       It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a 
     general appropriation bill proposing a net increase in budget 
     authority in the bill unless considered en bloc with another 
     amendment or amendments proposing an equal or greater 
     decrease in such budget authority pursuant to clause 2(f) of 
     rule XXI.

  The amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill 
in violation of such section. The Congressional Budget Office has 
stated that this amendment has costs associated with it. The Corps' 
current pricing policy is based upon ``updated cost of storage'' which 
reflects today's value (indexed to current price levels) rather than at 
the original construction cost price level. So reverting to 
construction cost levels will unavoidably have a cost, with the net 
effect of increasing the level of budget authority in the bill.
  Under section 3(d)(3), an increase in budget authority must be 
accompanied by an equal or greater decrease. This amendment does not 
contain an equal or greater decrease, and so violates section 3(d)(3).
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point or 
order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The gentleman from New Jersey makes a point of order that the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma violates section 
3(d)(3) of House Resolution 5. Section 3(d)(3) establishes a point of 
order against an amendment proposing a net increase in budget authority 
in the pending bill.

[[Page 11241]]

  The Chair has been persuasively guided by an estimate from the chair 
of the Committee on the Budget that the amendment proposes a net 
increase in budget authority in the bill. Therefore, the point of order 
is sustained. The amendment is not in order.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Chairwoman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Chairwoman, I rise only to say thank 
you to the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Frelinghuysen, who has 
been in this seat now for 38 days it seems like, but the entire time of 
this bill. He has not taken a break for any reason during the entire 
consideration of these dozens of amendments and general debate.
  I want to thank the chairman for doing a great job during this 
debate, but also in drafting the bill, along with his colleague, Marcy 
Kaptur, the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee. So, Mr. Chairman, we 
thank you for a job well done and thank you for persevering through all 
of this.
  Also, I want to say a word of thanks to the staff, who deserve so 
much credit for the work that has been before the body for the last 2 
days. Rob Blair, the clerk of the subcommittee, and all of the staff on 
both sides of the aisle have worked long and hard to bring this bill to 
the floor and to transpose it to the population of the House. So we 
thank you for a great job well done.
  As we near the end of the deliberation on the amendments and finally 
vote on the bill, I want to urge everyone to vote for this bill. This 
is a good bill. It cuts spending, it does the Nation's business, and 
it's fair and transparent.
  I urge adoption of the bill and yield back the balance of my time.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment by Mr. Whitfield of Kentucky.
  Amendment by Mr. Fleming of Louisiana.
  Amendment No. 28 by Mr. Garamendi of California.
  Amendment by Ms. Speier of California.
  Amendment by Mr. Chabot of Ohio.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Whitfield

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Mr. Whitfield) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 94, 
noes 329, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 339]

                                AYES--94

     Aderholt
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barr
     Benishek
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Bridenstine
     Broun (GA)
     Burgess
     Cantor
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Fincher
     Fleming
     Flores
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Hultgren
     Johnson (OH)
     Jordan
     Kingston
     Kline
     Lamborn
     Lankford
     Latta
     Long
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marino
     Massie
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Palazzo
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Price (GA)
     Rahall
     Ribble
     Rogers (AL)
     Rohrabacher
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shuster
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (TX)
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Tiberi
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Webster (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Woodall
     Yoho

                               NOES--329

     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Andrews
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Black
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chaffetz
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Daines
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Granger
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hurt
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Messer
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     O'Rourke
     Olson
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Radel
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salmon
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weber (TX)
     Welch
     Wenstrup
     Wilson (FL)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Campbell
     Grimm
     Holt
     Horsford
     Hunter
     Marchant
     McCarthy (NY)
     Negrete McLeod
     Rogers (MI)
     Schock
     Shimkus

                              {time}  2151

  Messrs. BROOKS of Alabama, LABRADOR, Ms. ESTY, Messrs. BUCSHON, 
KILMER, TAKANO, ROONEY, Mrs. NOEM, Messrs. SANFORD, RODNEY DAVIS of 
Illinois, KELLY of Pennsylvania, HUIZENGA of Michigan, SERRANO, Ms. 
VELAZQUEZ, and Mr. SESSIONS changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. JORDAN, CRAWFORD, AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia, MULVANEY, SMITH of 
Missouri, HALL, CASSIDY, and RYAN of Wisconsin changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.

[[Page 11242]]

  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Fleming

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Chaffetz). The unfinished business is the 
demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming) on which further proceedings were 
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 230, 
noes 194, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 340]

                               AYES--230

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Delaney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Issa
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--194

     Andrews
     Barber
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gerlach
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stivers
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Campbell
     Grimm
     Holt
     Horsford
     Hunter
     McCarthy (NY)
     Negrete McLeod
     Rogers (MI)
     Schock
     Shimkus

                              {time}  2156

  Mrs. CAPITO changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


               Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mr. Garamendi

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Garamendi) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 170, 
noes 253, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 341]

                               AYES--170

     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Walz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--253

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Andrews
     Bachmann

[[Page 11243]]


     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Maffei
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Slaughter
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Wasserman Schultz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Campbell
     Grimm
     Holt
     Horsford
     Hunter
     McCarthy (NY)
     Negrete McLeod
     Rogers (MI)
     Rush
     Schock
     Shimkus

                              {time}  2200

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Speier

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Speier) on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 174, 
noes 250, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 342]

                               AYES--174

     Amash
     Andrews
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Bera (CA)
     Blumenauer
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks (AL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Chaffetz
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Daines
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DelBene
     DeSantis
     Deutch
     Doggett
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Foxx
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Grayson
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Huizenga (MI)
     Israel
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Labrador
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Markey
     Matsui
     McClintock
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meadows
     Meeks
     Meng
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neugebauer
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rohrabacher
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salmon
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Velazquez
     Walden
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Woodall
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--250

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonamici
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bucshon
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Cleaver
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cotton
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis, Rodney
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Engel
     Enyart
     Esty
     Farenthold
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallego
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Latta
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Veasey
     Vela
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Watt
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Barton
     Campbell
     Grimm
     Holt
     Horsford
     Hunter
     McCarthy (NY)
     Negrete McLeod
     Rogers (MI)
     Shimkus

                              {time}  2204

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

[[Page 11244]]




                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Chabot

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Chabot) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 147, 
noes 273, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 343]

                               AYES--147

     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cramer
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     DeSantis
     Doggett
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Hall
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lankford
     Latta
     Long
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Olson
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--273

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks (AL)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Collins (NY)
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cotton
     Courtney
     Crawford
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Goodlatte
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (WA)
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marino
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Richmond
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney
     Rothfus
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stivers
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wenstrup
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wolf
     Womack
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Campbell
     Cole
     Crenshaw
     Diaz-Balart
     Grimm
     Holt
     Horsford
     Hunter
     Larson (CT)
     McCarthy (NY)
     Negrete McLeod
     Rogers (MI)
     Schrader
     Shimkus

                              {time}  2207

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``Energy and Water Development 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2014''.

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with 
the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, 
as amended, do pass.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs. 
Capito) having assumed the chair, Mr. Chaffetz, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2609) 
making appropriations for energy and water development and related 
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for other 
purposes, directed him to report the bill back to the House with sundry 
amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole, with the 
recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as 
amended, do pass.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the 
Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. SCHNEIDER. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the 
desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. SCHNEIDER. I am opposed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Schneider moves to recommit the bill H.R. 2609 to the 
     Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Page 3, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $650,000)''.
       Page 3, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $3,000,000)''.
       Page 6, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $7,000,000)''.
       Page 22, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 28, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $12,650,000)''.
       Page 29, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $12,650,000)''.

  Mr. SCHNEIDER (during the reading). Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to suspend reading of the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?

[[Page 11245]]

  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SCHNEIDER. Madam Speaker, this is the final amendment to the 
bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If 
adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as 
amended.
  I rise to offer this motion to recommit to ensure, first, that the 
Great Lakes and the Mississippi River are protected from the continued 
threat of invasive species, including and particularly taking practical 
steps to address the threat of Asian carp to our fishing, tourism, and 
navigation on our Nation's inland waterways.
  Second, that we provide the resources necessary to combat invasive 
aquatic plant growths that threaten our national fisheries, wildlife, 
and communities.
  Third, that we continue to fund efforts for our coastal communities 
to help them fully recover from natural disasters, while at the same 
time proactively prioritizing efforts being made to mitigate future 
threats to human life and property.
  Madam Speaker, the underlying bill represents a historic divestment 
in American infrastructure, jobs, and energy research.
  Instead of prioritizing investments that will safeguard our 
communities and improve our Nation's navigable waterways, this bill 
overemphasizes several outdated defense budget expenditures at the 
expense of making meaningful, forward-looking investments to grow our 
economy and contribute positively to our environment.
  We must not use the guise of fiscal prudence as an excuse to block 
important investments in alternative energy and basic physical energy 
research which benefit all sectors of our economy or to block important 
investments in infrastructure projects to improve our inland waterways 
and mitigate the potentially devastating consequences of natural 
disasters or to block investment in weatherization assistance to help 
our most vulnerable populations.
  This bill constitutes a generational abandonment of our communities 
and children who will have to face the stark reality of the decisions 
made here today, including a significant rollback of the Clean Water 
Act.
  The proposed amendment does not address all of the concerns I have 
with the underlying bill, but it will at least help to improve the bill 
moving forward. Specifically, Asian carp continue to deplete fish 
stocks and degrade local ecological balance, and must be addressed by a 
holistic government approach that partners with States to utilize best 
practices.
  This amendment would encourage these partnerships with the States 
while providing funding that can meaningfully address and prevent the 
outbreak of this invasive species.

                              {time}  2215

  Similarly, the influx of pollution and runoff to our waterways has 
contributed to an overabundance of aquatic plant life, such as algae 
blooms in Lake Erie, that choke vital nutrients from our natural 
ecosystems.
  This amendment takes a more practical approach to limiting the causes 
of this overgrowth, improving our water quality.
  The underlying bill also fails to adequately address the continuing 
needs of coastal communities adversely affected by flooding and other 
natural disasters.
  This amendment would aid in addressing critical vulnerabilities of 
communities facing severe economic impact from flooding, while 
prioritizing projects that will help safeguard human life.
  Lastly, but very significantly, this amendment would strengthen the 
current cooperative energy research being performed between the United 
States and the State of Israel. For almost two decades, we have 
partnered with Israel in developing scientific, business, and research 
relationships that contribute positively to the energy sectors of both 
the U.S. and Israel. This amendment continues that long partnership and 
capitalizes on our joint research capacities to identify emerging 
technologies and best practices for manufacturing while efficiently 
utilizing taxpayer money to continue to strategically benefit both of 
our nations.
  Madam Speaker, the essential provisions of this amendment will only 
improve the underlying bill, contributing significantly to American job 
growth, the safety of our communities, and protecting our vital natural 
resources. I strongly urge my colleagues to support these commonsense 
changes.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion 
to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The House has worked its will over the past 2 
days, and dozens of amendments have been considered in a very open and 
amicable process. This bill strengthens national security, fosters a 
stronger economy, and maintains important infrastructure that keeps 
American open for business and promotes job opportunities.
  And we do all of this while making some tough, but smart, funding 
decisions, saving taxpayers $2.9 billion over last year's enacted 
level. We have just 2\1/2\ months left before the end of the year. This 
is the time to act. Now is the time to pass our government funding 
bills. I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to recommit and 
to support the bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SCHNEIDER. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 5-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 5-
minute votes on the passage of the bill and approval of the Journal, if 
ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 195, 
noes 230, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 344]

                               AYES--195

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen

[[Page 11246]]


     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--230

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Campbell
     Grimm
     Holt
     Horsford
     Hunter
     McCarthy (NY)
     Negrete McLeod
     Rogers (MI)
     Shimkus


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  2223

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227, 
nays 198, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 345]

                               YEAS--227

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--198

     Amash
     Amodei
     Andrews
     Barber
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Franks (AZ)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Markey
     Massie
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Campbell
     Grimm
     Holt
     Horsford
     Hunter
     McCarthy (NY)
     Negrete McLeod
     Rogers (MI)
     Shimkus

                              {time}  2231

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________